Pra{matics5 :4.4-5-5 -484.

I n t c r n a t i o n aP
l r a q m a t i q sA s s o c i a t i o n

ARGUMENTATION AND INHIBITION:

SEXISM IN THE DISCOURSE OF SPANISH EXECUTTVES'

Luisa Martin Rojo

J a v i e rC a l l e j oG a l l ego

l. Introduction

As RobinLakotf claims,"the marginalityand powerlessness of women is reflected

in boththe wayswomen are expectedto speak,and the waysin which women are
spokenof'' ([-akotf 1982l.45). Both are, in fact. ntain issueswithin sociolinguistic
research (seeMcConnell-Ginet19f18. for a generaloverview).Our paper will deal
witha particularinstanceof the secondkind of situation:How Spanishmanagers
speakaboutwomen,and how they implicitlyfavour discriminationin recruitment
andpromotion.The managers'discourse, our paper shows.is sexist,even if sexism
is inhibited^
Our working hypothesiswill be that, in ordinary languageand everyday
speech, therearc a number of hnguisticresourcesand strategiesthat contributeto
maintaining maledomination,whileminimizingwomen'sparticipationin society,and
imposing a stereotvpedimagewhich is a sourceof.discreditand isolaticln.2 In this
sense.we will try to showhow certainproceduresusedby men in spokenlanguage
allowus to distinguishovert or blatantsexismfrom inhibitedsexism,which might
besimilarto 'elite'racism,as studiedby van Dijk (van Dijk 1991).In particular,this
papertocuseson inhibited sexismin discourse,and studiesits mechanismsand
socialimplicationsthnrugh both sociologicaland linguisticanalysis.Our aim is,
theretbre, interdisciplinaryin nature.
Inhibitionis an instanceof rationalizaticln
(seesection6), whichis carriedout
throughdifterent discoursivestrategies:Ignoranceand evasion tactics,denials,
mitigations,the toningdown of negativeactions,justifications, and so on. It involves
theintentionof avoidingnon-legitimate overt sexistexpressions and so turns into a
typeof impe(ectcensorship, since the subjectdoes not completely internalisethe
legitimate modesof perceptionand expression and actsas his own censor(Bourdieu

t
This papcr was written with thc support o[ thc Instituto tlc la Mujcr (Ministerio de
A s u n t o sS o c i a l e s )W
. c w o u l d l i k c t o t h a n k a l s o C I M O P a n d o u r c o l l e a q u e sR a c h e l W h i t a k c r a n d
Luis Eguren for their collaboration.

2 Within this rescarcharea,

and with particular rcfcrcncc to Spanish,we woulcl like to clraw
a t t e n t i o nt o , t h e w o r k o [ a u t h o r s s u c h a s B o d i n e ( 1 9 7 5 ) , M a f l e r u ( i 9 9 1 ) , F c r n 6 n d e z l a g u n i l l a
(1991),Fuertes (1989), Calero (1990), Ervin (1962), Garcia Messeguer (198U); as well as the
c o l l a b o r a t i oann d a c t i v i t i e sa g a i n s ts e x i s mo f t h c M i n i s t e r i o d c E d u c a c i 6 ny C i e n c i a ( 1 9 8 8 ) a n d t h e
I n s l i t u t od c l a M u ; c r ( 1 9 8 9 ) .
456 Luisa Martin Rojo and Juv'ttrCallqo Gttlk'gt;

1 9 B 5 : 1 i 0 ) . I t i s p r e c i s e l y t h a t i m p c r f e c t c e n s o r s h i pw h i c h g i v e s r i s e to different
degreesof inhibition. depending on the context of interilction.
From the ar:ralysis of our datu, rve will clraw a distinction among three types
of sexism:
I) iriltihited androcentris,n (see section 4.1), which is present in more formal
s i t u a t i o n s o f ' l i n g u i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n .T h i s i s a r a d i c a l t y p e o f e x c l u s i o n ,w h i c h e n t a i l s
'suppression'
(see van Leeuwen 1995).
2) urgument-bosedse.vism(see section 4.2). which is typical of -.ituationsin which the
s p e a k e r i s u r g e d t o t a k e a s t a n d c o n c e r n i n ud i s c r i m i n a t i o na g a i n s tw o m e n . I t e n t a i l s
t h e u s e c l f a d i l f e r c n t k i n d o f c x c l u s i o np r o c e d u r e st h a t a r e u r t i c u l i r t e dc l n t l , ^ / oz r x e s :
DIVIDING. and REJECTING (Foucault l9l1).
3) bluturtt or or(il .re'.usnr(see section 6). which contrirsts with hoth forms of
i n h i b i t e d s e x i s m . i r n d i s o p e n i y s t a t c d a s s o o n a s t h e r r r t c r l o c u t o r sd i s c o v e r s h a r c d
v i e w p o i n t s u n d e r l y i n g t h e i r i n h i b i t i o n s a t t h e e n d o f t h e g r o u p m e e t i n g s .T h i s o v e r t
form of sexism discredits and completcly cxcludes the subject who is being
discriminated. All these three forms of sexir;m seem complementary, yet alsu
o p p o s e d . l n h i b i t i o n s u b t l y r e p r e s e n t sa n u n d e r l y i n g ,a b s o l u t e r e l e c t i c l no f e q u a l i t y ,
w h i l e r e c o g n i z i n gi t s v a l u e a t t h e s a m e t i r n e . I t s i m u l t a n e o u s l yd e n i e s a n d m a i n t a i n s
b o t h t h e a c t o f r e j e c t i n g a n d t h a t w h i c h i s r e j e c t e d .s c lt h a t , a s B o u r d i e u ( i 9 t i 5 : 1 i 5 )
p o i n t s o u t , " i t a l k l w s t h e m o n o p o l i z a t i o n o f a l l t h e a d v a n t a g e s st,h e a d v a n t a g e o f
saying and thc advantagc of rct'uting what is suid by the wav it is said" (see section
0).
The diukryic orgunizuliott of discourse allows firr the interpenetrzrtion of
m u l t i p l e v o i c e s a n d f o r t h e s c t t l e r n c n to f i n t e r d i s c t ) u r s i v er 'e l a t i o n s a s w e l l . I n t h e
ciise under study, legitrmate and normative discourse is invoked, and the ways in
w h i c h b o t h i n h i h i t e d s c x i s m a n d o v c r t s e x i s n r? l r e c x p r e s s e dm a y s h o w t h e d e g r e e
clf adherence to accepted norms (such as the equality between genders). A
comrnonly accepted norm is neither true nor faise; what is at stake here is the
d e g r e e i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l sa d h e r e t o t h a t n o r m . I n t h i s r e s p e c t ,t h e p r o c e s s e sb e i n g
generated within group meetings can be a rich solrrce of data in urder to observe
both the degree of adherence to a norm, and how the process of manutzrcturing
c o n s e n s u st a k e s p l a c e ( s e e s e c t i o n2 . 1 ) .
O u r r e s e a r c h i s p a r t o f a b n r a d e r s t u d y c l n t h e r e p r es e n t a t i o n c l f w o m e n i n
competitive working envirr.rnmentsw . ith particular reference to positions of
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . rV . r y f e w w o m e n o c c L r p yp o s i t i o n s l i k e t h o s e i n S p a i n . d e s p i t e t h e
t a c t t h a t m a n y o f t h e m h a v e t h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l c l f c l u a l i f i c a t i o nT. ' h i s c l e a r l y p o i n t s
to a dcgree clf discrirnination. The resulting discourse is significantly sexrst.in that
i t i s d i r e c t e d t o r v a r c l sg e n c r a t i n g o r s u s t a i n i n ga s i t u a t i c l no f i n e q u a l i t y b e t w e e n
g e n d e r s , r a t h e r t h a n c o n t r i b u t i n g t o i t s a m e l i o r a t i o n .A s w i l l b e s e e n b e k r w , i t i s
p r e c i s c l y t h i s l a c k o f c o h e r e n c c b e t w e e n t h c l e g i t i r n a t ed i s c o u r s eo f e c l u a l i t ya n d
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s o c i a l p r a c t i c e sw h i c h p r o d u c e s a n d e x p l a i n s i n h i b i t i o n .
B o t h s o c i a l p r a c t r c e sa r c r e l e v a n t f u r t h e d c f i n i t i o n o f i d e n t i t y : F i r s t , a s F o u c a u l t

r ConchaC6mcz,
L u i s a M a r t i n R o j o , J a v i c rC a l l c j o a n d J u a n M a n u c l D c l g a i l o . " [ - a i m a g e n
d e l a m u j c r c n s i t u u c i o n c sd e c o m p c t i t i v i d a dl a b o r a l " ( T h e i m a g c o [ w o m c n i n c o m p e t i t i v c w o r k
c o n t c x t s ) . 1 9 9 5 , i \ 4 a d r i d :S i g l o X X I 1 i n p r c s s ) ; r c s e a r c hp r o j c c t s u p p o r t c d b y t h c l n s t i t u t o d e l a
M u j c r o f t h c M i n i s t c r i o d c A s u n t o s S o c i a l c s ,M a d r i d , A p r i l 1 9 9 . 1 .
 St.xi.ynt
in the discrturscof Spunish executit,es 457

(1971)says,discoursecreatessubjectsand selt'-knowledgebv means of cleflningwhat

is usual and what constitutes a deviaticln;and. second, as our research shows, male
self--identity seems to be strongly rooted in the workplace (see G6mez Esteban et
a l . 1 9 9 5 ) .I n t h i s c a s e ,f u l l a c c e p t a n c eo f t h e d i s c o u r s eo f e q u a l i t y c l a s h e sw i t h t h e
maintenanceof Inen's prctminent role in the wrtrkplace, rvhich entails lnequality.
Htlwever, the tzrct that such verbal sexism on the part of male businessmen ten<Js
to be inhibited points to ongoing changes in the relations between genders.

2. Methods

2.1. Sociological approach

T h e d i s c o u r s e st h a t f b r m o u r s a m p l e w e r e p r o d u c e d d u r i n g t h r e e m e e t i n g s h e l d i n
Madrid by groups of men aged between 28 and 45. Two of the grclups were made
uP of, on the one hand middle-level employee.sand, on the other hancl upper-level
managers,all of whom work either for the public administraticln or tor large
national or multinational corporations. The third was made up of prot'essionals
(lawyers,doctors, etc.).4
Group discussionis a qualitative social researchtechnique with a noteworthy
tradition in Spain (see for instzince lblfiez 7979, 1990, 1994; Orti 1986 and Alonso
1994). It consists essentially of a siturition of group communication in which
ideologlcaldiscoursesand socierlrepresentationsof shared knowledge are analyzed.
The main features clf group discussionare the follclwing: a) it is made up of
seven,eight or nine individuals; b) the participants belong to the same social sector,
that is, there is group homogeneity: c) except under some circumstances (in small
villages,for instance), participants do not know each other; cl) it lasts two hours or
so; e) ttlpics are not introduced in a direct way and closed questions are avoided.
Once the topic of the meeting is suggested,the participants produce the discourse.
They themselvescontrol both its sequencing and its content. In contrast with the
role it piays in clinical psychology,group discussiondoes not have any therapeutic
'Ihe
aim within sociology. point here is quite different. We want to know hclw the
membersof a particular social sector build their idcntity as they develop the
suggestedtopic. And, at the same time, we try tcl discover how the social
phenomenon under study is built up from the identity of that social sector.
Group discussion is a potentially porverful tool to isolate the ideological
valuesof the social sectors represented within the group during the process of the
manuf-acture of consensus.The participants construct the social object of discussion
in such a way that, though experimentul, it is close to a typical everyclay social
interactittn:a) at the infclrmation level, they talk erboutn wurlcl that they know and
t h e r ei s a n i n t e n t i o n t o b e t r u t h f u l ( w h a t t h c y s a v o f t h a t w o r l d m a t c h e s t h e w o r l d

4 Wc
will usc the folklwing abtrrcr,iations:
RG, Prof.: Mcn. Betwccn .15and 45. Professionals.
RG, Dir.: Mcn. Between 35 and 45. Exccutivcs and uppcr-lcvcl managers of thc public
A d m i n i s t r a t i o no r o f l a r g e m u l t i n a t i o n a l c n t c r p r i s c s .
R G , A d m . : M e n . B e t w e e n2 8 a n d 3 5 . M i t l d l c - l e v c l c m p l o y c c sw i t h p c o p l c u n < l e rr h c i r r c s p o n s i b i l i t y .
,158 Luiso lvlart[n Ro.1tt
antl Jttt'ierCall{o Gallqlo

t h e y k n o w ) : b ) a t t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n l e v e l ,t h e y t a l k t o p e o p l e w h o b e l o n g t o t h e i r
'world
o.[ life'(l{a'bermas l9fJ5, 1987, 1989). This allows the reinftrrcemcnt of
t r u t h f u l n e s s - ' ,t h a t i s , t h e m a t c h i n g b e t w e e n w h a t i s s a i d a n d w h a t i s r e a l l y f e l t
ahout what i.ssaid, because. in principle, nohoclv is likely to deceive those who are
'world
one's macrosocial equals (belclngingto the same of lde') and one's microsocial
equals (having identical turn-taking rightswithin the group context).
H a v i n g s t r e s s e dt h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p o t e n t i a l o f t h e g r o u p m e e t i n g . i t i s
n e c : e s s a r tyo m e n t i o n t h e p r o b l e m s a n d c o n s t r a i n t st h i s r e s e a r c hm e t h o d h a s i n a
s p e c i f i cs i t u a t i o n . W h e n t a l k i n g a b o u t w o m e n , t h e w a y t h e y a r e r e p r e s e n t e dm a y b e
v e r y s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e d o m i n a n t p r e v a i l i n g d i s c o u r s e ,t h a t w h i c h i s m o s t r e a d i l y
a c c e p t e d w i t h i n t h e g n t u p t h i s r e s e u r c hm e t h o d f o c u s e so n . i t i s e a s i e r t o g e t t o a
consensus on what is considered legitimate than on what is considered
n o n - l e g i t i m a t e . T h i n g s b e i n g s o . t h e p r o r : e s so f r a t i o n u l i z a t i o n m a y y i e l d t o t h e
d o m i n a n t s t e r e o t y p e sa n d c o n c e a l t h e d e g r e e r > fe m o t i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t r . l , i t ht h e
. h c t r u t h f u l n e s so f t h e s t a t e m e n t sr e m a i n s
s c l c i a lr e p r e s e n t a t i o n sb e i n g e x p r e s s e d T
q u e s t i o n a b l e .T h i s h a p p e n s w h e n e v e r f i e l d s i n w h i c h t h e r e i s a h i g h l y d o n t i n a n t
'democratic:'
d i s c o u r s em o d e l a r e s t u d i e d ( f o r e x a m p l c . t o c o n s i d e ro n e s e l f in the
'non-racist'
field of politics. in the field of social relartions,or, in the case under
'non-sexist').
study, to consider oneself
T h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t e n d t o r a t i o n a l i z c t h e d i s c o u r s ea n d t r y t o p r e s e n t t h e i r
'clemocratic'. 'non-racist' 'non-sexist',
own behaviour as or hiding their
'non-democratic','racist'or'sexist'attitudes.
This is w h y, afier an initial stageof
group consolidation, the meetings rnove into a second stage in which the moderatclr
p l a y s a m o r e a c t i v e r o l e , i n t r o d u c i n g o r r e i n f o r c i n gp a r t i c u l a r t o p i c s . f o r i n s t a n c e .
promotions within the labour world clr working attitudes and values in contemporary
society. The idea is that the group should not only reproduce the acceptable,
c o n v e n t i o n a l r e s p o n s e so f f o r m a l d i s c o u r s c .
It wzrs noticed from the outset that the discussion on women within the
w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t w i l s r c s t r i c t c d a n d n o n s p o n t a n e o u sT . his inhibition could be
seen in two kinds of situations:
1. Whenever the participants are not urged to take a stand on the source of contlict
( t h e b u s i n e s sw o m a n ) , t h e m a i n m e c h a n i s r no f c x c l u s i o ni s e v a s i o n :T h e y j u s t d o n o t
speak about the soci:rl object which is excluded. The lack of coherence between
e x p e n e n c e a t t h e w o r k i n g p l a c e a n d t h e d i s c o u r s co f e q u a l i t y b e t w e e n g e n d e r s r s
p r e c i s e l y w h a t r e m a i n s h i d d e n h c r c . A s t h e d i s c u s s i o ng o e s o n . t h c p r e s s u r e o f
e x p e r i e n c e e v e n t u a l l y l e a d s t o p u t t i n g a s i d e c o n c e a l m e n t( F r e u d 1 9 f t 5 : 1 t 3 8 ) .
T h e s e a v o i d a n c e s t r a t e g i c se v e n t u a l l y d i s a p p c a r a s g r o u p d y n a m i c s i n t h e
meeting lead towards the creation of a'basic group'(Bion I974), which is ruled by
Ihe pleu.surepirtc'iplc (the fulfilrnent of desires).From this point on. we begin to find

t H a b c r m a sc l e l i n e st r u t h f u l n c s su s : " a c l a i m v a l i d i t y
of l i n k c c lt o r c p r e s e n t a t i v es p c c c ha c t s .
a c : l a i mw h i c h s a v st h a t , w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n s I s h o w . I m c a n c x a c t l vw h a t I s a y .A s p c a k c r r s t r u t h f u l
u h c n h c / s h c n e i t h c r d c c c i v c sh i m r h c r s c l l ' n o ro t h c r s [ . . . ]i n s e l f - c x p r e s s i vscp c c r c ha c t sI s t a t c n o t h i n g
a b o u t m v o w n i n t e r n a l c p i s o d c s . I d o n o t m a k c a n v c l a i m , I j u s t e x p r c s ss o m c t h i n g w h i c h i s
s u b j c c t i v c "( H a b c r m a s 1 9 8 9 : 1 ( X ) ) A . s c a n b c g u c s s e dt,h c d e g r e co l ' t r u t h f u l n e s si s n o t o n l y r e l a t c d
1 o h o u ' t h c r e s e a r c hi s c a r r i e do u t , h u t a l s t ' rt o t h c p a r t i c i p a n t sd' c g r c c o f i n v c l l v e m c nw t ith thc social
o b j e c t o f s t u d - vT - :h c g r c a t c r t h c p e r s o n a li n v o l v em c n t , t h e m o r c m e a n i n g f u lw i l l b e t h e p r o b l c m s
c o n c e r n i n g t r u t h f u l n c s s .s i n c c t h c s u b j c c tw i l l b c m o r c c a u t i o u si n h i s , t r e rs t a l e m c n t s .
 Sexisntin the discourse of Spanish erecuth.,es 459

that meaningsthat were hidden by legitimateand legitimisingrationalisation-for

example,the discoursethat relies on such argumentslike the incompetenceof
womentirr responsibility, particularlyfor leadership,in terms of their physicalor
psychcllogical make up. When the group becomesawareof its identityas a group,
asa part of societyratherthan as societyas a whole,this processis basedon a kind
of sexismthat sometimesgoesback to its most traditionalforms.It is preciselyhere
that other featuresof group meetingas a socialresearchmethod begin to play a
role:Giventheir distinctcharacteristics, the participantshaveto partly rebuild their
'worlclof life' in order to
becomea group; that is, they project their experiencesso
that becomethemselveslegitimizedwithin the group. whosemembersshare this
typeof experiences. They use the group as a mirror of their own experiences(the
'looking-glass self', Goffman 1986b).This has meaningfuletfects in the case of
groupsmadeup by prot-essionals and executives-thosewho havethe powerto select
and promote personnel-,since in this way, they indirectlyshow themselvesand
othersas agentsof discriminatorypractice.
2. When either the group dynamicsand/or the moderator'sparticipationquestion
theinitialsurfacerationalisations, the discoursebecomesa parodyof women in the
workplacewhich is generallysharedwithin the group. This consensusis more
substantial when speakingof women than when speakingof work issues.The
subjects' experiences in the workplacemake them different,sincetheir jobs and
responsibilities are alsodiffbrent;however,their experiences with womenbringthem
together. Their identityas men seemsto overcometheir identityas businessmen and
asindividuals who acknowledgethe value of equality.

2.2.Discourseanalr*sis

Our paperfollowsa criticalapproachto DiscourseAnalysis(seevan Dijk 1988and

1993;Wodak 1995), in the sense that it tries to reveal: First, how power
relationships are establishedand work throughoutdiscourses; and second,how, by
meansof the appropriationof thesediscourses, power producesknowledgeabout
statesof affairsand aboutsubjectsthemselves (seeFoucault1971;and Martin Rojo
1995a ).
One <tf our main concernsis to find out the argumentativestrategiesand
linguisticproceduresusedby speakerswhichwould revealboth their views on the
labourwurld and their attitudesregardingwomen'sincorporationinto it. Imagesof
womenand genderprejudicesare explicitlyor implicitlypresentin discourse.They
aretransmittedin discoursein a persuasive and convincingway, and being shared
knowledge,they form the cognitive basis on which discourseis built. In this
particularcase,prejudicesare the cognitivegroundon which discriminationagainst
womenboth at the workplaceand home is established. Discourseis an interpreta-
tion -and not a retlection-of a stateof atfairsand crfthe role playedby speakers
within it6. It is an elaboration,and sometimesa iustification.of actions and

o 'This simplymeansthat thereis nothingto be interprcted. Thereis nothingto interpret

fromtheoutset,because, esscntially,
everything is alreadyan interpretation.
Eachsignis in itselfnot
thcobjectoflercd to be interpretedbut the interpretationof other signs'(Foucault,1967:35-36)
460 Luisa Mart[n Rolo and Jav'rtr Catlejo Gallego

behaviourswhich contributeto creatingsuchdiscriminatory situations.

Within discourse.we try to find out not only what speakersclaim to feel and
do, but also what they really feel and do. This analysisairnsto study a sericsof
ditferent discclurseactivities,such as justification,rationalization,categorization,
a ttribut ion,m ak r n gs e n s e e , x c l u s i o na n d i d e n ti fi cati on(seeW etherel land P otter
1992 2). As will be seen in the followingsections,thesestrategiesand linguistic
resourcespoint to the existenceof dittbrentkindsof sexismin the presentcase.
A s will bec o m ec l e a r i n th i s p a p e r.o u r a n al ysi does s not merel yconsi stof
a descriptionof linguisticsresources,but entailstwo interpretativeprocesses. As
Fa ir c louhs ugges tsi n, te rp re te rti oi sn fi rs t n e c e s s a ry " to make senseof the features
of texts by seeingthem as elementsin discr)urse practice",and it is also necessary
in order to explainhclwthesef'eatures are pnlducedand understood, by seeingthem
as embeddedwithin a wider,socialpractice.Discclurse analysisis,therefrlre,a mode
of socialpractice,similarto discourseproductionitself(Fairclough1992:198-199).
Given thc aimsand the nature<lfthis research, our analysis will be directedtowards
the studyof how discourses create,reproduce,reaffirm,or modify,socialrealities.
It will focuson the interrelationbetweenchanges within the 'order' and construction
cl f d is c our s eand s o c i a la n d c u l tu ra lc h a n g e s(s e evan D i j k 1991:ch.4,for i r si mi l ar
analysison corporatedisct-lurse and racism).
To achievetheseaims,we will put togetherdifferentperspectives of analysis.
which could be viewed as complementarytrendswithin criticaldiscourseanalysis
(se eW odak 1995).T h e ya re th e fo l l o w i n gF: a c e -t o-face i nteracti onanal ysi(2.2.i
s .);
th e F c r uc nult ianpe rs p e c ti v (2e .2 .2 .):th e c o g n i ti v ebasi s(2.2.3.).

2.2.l. Fuce-to-.face
interactiortarnlysis

Through the analysisof interaction,we tocus on how speakersbuiid social

re l at ions hipsin dis c o u rs ea,n d o n th e s p e a k e rs ' s el f-prcsentati on as i ndi vi dual s
both
and as members of a group, in this crrse,as membersof a male group. Through
their collaborativework within interaction.the interlocutorsachieve"understanding
:rnd,:rszlpart of this process,displayto eachother their understanding of the events
in progressat zl particular moment" (Duranti and Goodwin I991: 22). It is this
collaborativeorganizzrtionof a changingtopic:within group interaction (from
ccl m pet it iv enest os d i s c ri mi n a ti o a
ng a i n sw
t o me n i n recrui tmentand promoti on),
and its implicationsin self-presentation as well, which will be our main focus of
attention. In this respect,we make use of some of the main ideas developedby
Coftman (1967) in the study of tace-to-taceinteraction,especiallythose of self-
presentationand face-keeping. which are linked with the choiceof argumentative
strategiesand linguisticresources.'FollowingVerschueren's pragmaticperspective
(se e V er s c huer en1 9 8 7 ).w e c o n s i c l elra n g u a g eu se as a permanentmaki ng of

(Our translation).

7
Ft.r, u detailecl analysis sec G6mez Esteban et al. 1995. In diffcrent parts of this morc
gencral ongoing research,we are close to the etnography of speaking,specially as regards the rolc
p l a y e d b y i n t e r a c t i o n i n s o c i a l o r g a n i z - a t i o n( c r e a t i o n , d e l i m i t a t i o n , a n d m a i n t e n a n c eo f s o c i a l
g r o u p s ) . a n d i n t h c c u n s o l i d a t i o no f v a l u c sa n d b c l i e f s .
 Sexi.snt
in the discourseof Spanishexecutives 46I

linguistic choices (phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, and discursive).

This notion of variability entails the choices made by the speakers being correlated
with context, rnterlocutors,aims, and communicative needs. In this way, all linguistic
choicesare relevant, even though they do not have fixed functions within different
contexts.As a consequence,interacticlnalanalysisbecomes an interpretative process,
which aims to find out both the mcltivationsand the results of the range of choices.
Ali the issuesapproached trom this perspective ultimately ret-erto the study
of social identity and to the construction of knowledge through discourse. Both
phenomena are central topics within the Foucaultian framervork, as will now be

2.2.2. Tlte Fottcuultiart perspective:Tlte study r{ power artd the prodttctiort of

knowledge tlwtuglt discottrseo

Accordingto Michel Foucault,the 'new rituals of power' are exercisedthrough

discourse. These includethe definitionof what is usualand expected,as opposed
to whatconstitutes a deviation!an exceptionand,consequently, createssubjectsand
selt-knowledge. Poweris not necessarily repressive,but, as Foucaultshows,it works
partly by definingwhat it meansto be a proper humanbeing.One of its ett'ectsis,
then,subjectivation: The constitutionof subjectsand speciticknowledgeabout
as pec tofs t he s e l f(F o u c a u l t1 9 9 4 a & i 9 9 4 b ).T hus,pow ercanbe detectednot onl y
in prohibitions. but alsowheneverthe subjectassumes a particularway of acting,or
whenevcrthe subjectconsidersthis way of acting as a particular expressit-rn of
his/hertrue identity.Selt-regulation and normalizationresultfrom 'external'tbrces
t ur ningint o' inte ri o r's e l t-c l i s c i p l i n e .e
Amongstthe diftbrentdiscursive practicesapproachedfrom this perspective,
thereare: First.the studyof exclusionprocedures(seeFoucault1977),by meansof
whichwomen are exciudedfrom the workplace;and second,intertextuality(see
Foucault1969;Voloshinov 1973),by means of which legitimatediscoursesare
invokecl and identityprocesses are carriedout. The constitutionand reproduction
of socialknowledgeis involvedin the fulfilmentof both practices.We now focuson
t hc c oc nit r v e
ba s i so f th i s i n v o l v e m e n t.

B Foucaull's influcncc secms to bc more ancl more relevant in current developments of

DiscourscAnalvsis (scc, for cxample, Wcthcrell & Pottcr 1992;Fairclough 1992;and Wodak 1995).

9ln olhcr arcas

of our ongoing rcscarch (see footnote 7), we have focused on the
constitutionof subjectivity through men's and women's discoursein relation with power structures.
Wc havc studied, in particular, how subjectivationtakes place and how the social world is organized
and catcgorized.In this sensc,male discoursesecms to be mainly contrcllling and normative, using
the persuasivcand rhctorical power of discourse.sincc it rcproduces and legitimizes traditional
patternsof subjectivity. On the other hand, within female discourse,we have found an emergent
p a t ( c r no f s u b j e c t i v i t y ,w h i c h q u e s t i o n st r a d i t i o n a l m o d e l s ,p l a c i n g i t a g a i n s tn o r m a t i v e d i s c o u r s c .
The main argumcntativc strategyof femalediscourseis manilest intertextuality (Martin Rojo t 995b).
462 Luisa Martin Rolo ontl Jay'rer Caltejo Gatlego

2.2.3. Tlrc cogrtitivebasis

In diffbrent momcnts of our analysis,we tbcus on social categorizationand

stereotypes,followingas a referenc:e frameworkresearchby Lakoff (1987),Tajfel
(1 9 81) ,T ur ner ( 19ti 5 ;a n d T u rn e r e t a l . 1 9 8 7 ),v a n D i j k (1987),and W etherel land
Potter (1992).[n particularwe try to find out: a) the cognitivestrategiesby which
participantsgivecoherenceto the socialprocesscs theyfaceduringinteraction(such
as wonren's incorporation in the labour market); b) how they organize their
experiences; c) which changesare consideredto be relevant,and which constraints
they establishto further changes:d) which socialphenomenaare consideredto be
e i th ert he s our c eor th e e ff' e c ts
o f th e s ec h a n g e se; ) how thevbui l d and l usti fythei r
d i sc our s eabout bot h g e n d e rs .
By looking at somc piccesof the analyzedconversations, we will see how
ditferentfeaturesare assignedtcl eachgender.This processresultsfrom a cognitive
processof associationancl also derivesfrom a metonymicprulcess, by means of
wh i c h a s ubc at ego ry (' n o n -w o rk i n gm o th e rs ' )o r a parti cul arfeature(' not to be
devoted to work'), standsfor the whole category(women) (Lakoff 19t37).This
procedure,which is reintbrcedby discursive strategies. suchas exclusiontacticsand
'overdetermination'r0, zrllowsfbr quick and biasedjuctgementsabout indivrduals
and socialgrclups,and playsa crucialrole both in argumentativemovesand in the
co n s t r uc t ionof dis c o u rs e .

3. Main topics and argumentativeprogression:Competitivenessas a framework

In the group meetingswe have analyzed,after a preliminarypresentation,most of

the rest of the discussiondealswith competitiveness in the workplaceand related
i ssuesT. his t opic s e e me dto b e a ' s a feto p i c ' (i ts d evel opmentw as domi natedby
androccntrism)and was maintaineduntil issuessuchas the women'sstatuswithin
the labourworld and their beingdiscriminated in promotionwere indirectlybrought
up by the moderator(in section4.1.we will focuson thistransitionfrom a safetopic
tcl a more dangerousone tor men's5slf'-presentation).
Competitiveness was initially talked about by the participantsas typical of
situertionswhich offer generalpossibilities of promotionwithin the hierarchyof the
businessorganization.In this respect,it shouldbe pointedout that more emphasrs
was placedon power than on thc economicbenefitsderivedfrom pr<lmotions, which
seemsto be related to the fac:tthat men's self-identityis stronglyrooted in the
workplace -in iiddition to the typical reluctanceto talk about money. Personal
successsecmsto be basedalmostexclusively on developmentin prof-essional life in
highlyprofessionalworking positions. The interlocutors considerpromotionas a way
of social recognition.In this scnse,not mentioningwomen in this part of the
discussionmight mean that women's promotion is seen, within the groups of
protessionals and executivesbeing analvzed.as ^ threat tcl their identity. When

1 0A f , r . * o f s v m b o l i cr e p r c s e n t a t i o n
o f s o c i a la c t o r s ,i n w h i c h s o c i a la c t o r sa r e r e p r e s e n t e d
a s p a r t i c i p a t i n g .a t t h c s a m e t i m c , i n n r r r r ct h a n o n c s o c i a lp r a c t i c e '( v a n l r e u w e n 1 9 9 5 b :2 I - 2 3 : s e e
a l s o v a n L e c u w e n 1 9 9 5 a :1 0 1 ) .
 in thediscourse
Serisnt of Spanish
erecutiy,es463

the moderatorfirst suggests the topic of women'spromotion,a changewithin the

groups'dynamicsis observedin the developrnentof a particular subtopic the
participantshad already addressed:The criteria used for promotion. The
argumentationon this issue goes from subjectiveciteia (as regards men) to
objectiveciteria (as regardswomen). At the beginning,when talking about men's
promotion,there arise differencesamongstand within the different groups with
respectto the degreeof subjectivityof the criteria used in the selectionprocess.
However,such differencesvanish when the topic of women's promotion to
managementor responsabilitypositionsis raised. In fact, the mention of the
subjectivityof the criteria employedentirelydisappears. What in the beginningis
perceivedas subjectiveis later on seen as clbjective,by meansof referencesto
'culture'or 'tradition'.This is a typical
instanceof rationalization(seesection6), in
that it hidesthe emotional origins of their beliefsbehind argumentswhich are
supposed to be objective(Boudon 1992:29).
The argumentativeprogression(from subjectivityto objectivity)runs as
follows;

1. In the promotion procedureseveryonemust be treated equally.The groups

criticisethe transgression
of this principle:

(1) ..etilotrces, qttiero decir Ete la entpreso no te valora tlts conocimientos

ttcrticos o tu capacidad de trabajo... (RG. Dir:17)

'...Then,what want
I to say is that the companydoesn'tvalue your
technicalknowledgeor your capacityfor work...'(R. Dir:17)

(2) ... Erttottces, idortde estd la v,erdaderapromociritt? (R. Dir:6)

' . . .T h e nw
, h e re
i s tru e p ro mo ti o n ?'(R . D i r:6)

2. Sincein thosecontextsin which trust is necessary

subjectivecriteria have to be
used,it is impossibleto treat everyonealike:

(3) ...tienesque trabajar con wta persotn qLtetengaaproximadarnentelas

mismus opirtionesque lri, Lutupersona que tenga las misma.sideas,
poque si rut... (R. Dir.10)

'You
haveto work with a personwith more or lessthe sameopinions
as yours,a personwith the sarneideas,becauseif not...'(R. Dir:10)

Then. the criticismsare soffened:

(4) Claro, entotrcesya ,n esamigiismo en el setttidoesticto de la palabra.

Yo creo que hemoshablado de amiguismodemasiadopronto y de una
forma muy sttperficial...(R. Dir:13)
'Of course,then this isn't 'stirtg-pulling'in
the true senseof the word.
I think we startedto talk about 'ptilling-stings'toosoon and in a very
464 Luisu Martin Rojo und Jav,ierCaltcjo Gatkgo

s u p e r f i c i a lw a y ' ( R . D i r : 1 3 )

3. However, there are subjective elements that are so generally accepted that they
ett'ectrvelymove trom being considered subjective to being accepted as objective,
such as, for example, those with respect to the difficultics that women have in taking
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e sa n d d o i n g t a s k s r e q u i r i n g s u b s t a n t i a lc o m m i t m e n t . I n t h i s w a y , t h e
'double
widespread so-cerlled duty' (a double or even triple shifi) of the wurking
wornan -who is assumed to be the person who takes on the duties of the hclusewife
i s c r e a t e d . T h i s b e c o m e s a r e a s o n f b r d i s c r i m i n a t i o na g a i n s tw o m e n w i t h r e s p e c t t o
men; a reason which is acccpted and normalized in promotion proccsses.

(s) "..siRuntdn le dic'clodo.slo.sdiu.sEte tienetluc ir u buscara lrx nirfux

muclto, tut diu cs Lut diu, pero que tu) me kt
ul ctilegio,pues, dic,e.y,
cLtenleslodoslos d[us,ert cambir),cottMur4uritusc ve,v ul firnl se lnce
(R. Prot:I8)
c'osttunbre...

'...if Ramr)nsaysto
vou everyday that he has to fetch the kids from
school,you say: 'just thrs once. but don't ask me cvery day. But.,
at in thc end it becomcsa hafrit"..(R.
Margaritrrgocseveryday anctr.
P r of :l 8 )

W h a t w e f i n d i n t h i s c a s e i s a t a c t i c o f s e l f - d e f e n s e( i f t h e c r i t e r r a a r e n o t
o h j e c t i v e .t h e a c r c u s a t i o n
o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o na g a r n s tw o m e n c a n b c f b r m u l a t e d c l n t h e
basis of this key argument). The conscquence of this defensive tactic is zr
s e l f - e x c u l p a t o r yd i s c o u r s e o n t h e p a r t o f m e n ( s e e s e c t i o n 6 ) : " W e s e i e c t o u r
p e r s o n n e l o n t h e b a s i s o f q u a l i t y a n d t h e d e g r e e o f c o m m i t m c n t t t ) w o r k " ( s e e ,v a n
D U k 1 9 9 1 : c h . 4 , f o r v e r y s i m i l a r r e m a r k s ) . A f i e r t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o no f t h e p r o m o t i o n
'good
critenon of personal relationships'(which could be understood as also
r e f e r r i n g t o t h e m a l e - f ' e m a l er e l a t i o n s i n t h e w o r k p l a c e ) . t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n r n t o t h e
discussiclnof female references by the moderator produced manv changes.

1 . T h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f c e r t a i n e l e m e n t s f r c m t h e d i s c u s s i o n :C r i t i c i s m s a g a i n s t t h e
system disappear and biased criteria are not referred to again. so that it may be
inferred thart.even if decisions taken with regard to the promotion of me n seem to
bc debatable, this is not the cersefor decisions concerning women: Not promoting
t h e m . i n t h i s c a s e . T h e t a i l u r e o f w o m e n t o b e p r o m c l t c d ,a s w e s h a l l s e e i n 4 . 2 ,
must be for objective reasons: "Thcy don't deserve it", "they disqualify themselves".
"they aren't committed to the firm", and so on. In this wzry,there is a movement
f r o m a v o i d a n c e o f t h e s u b l e c t i n d i s c c l u r s et o c x c l u s i o nw i t h i n t h e d i s c o u r s e ,h a s e d
on the argument that it is wclmen who exclr"rdethemselves.

2 . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , s u b j e c t i v ec r i t e r i a a r e m a i n t a i n e d :W h a t i s i m p o r t a n t i s t o g e t
on well with a colleague. All reference to the existence of bias, that is, promclting
friends or politicking, disappear. The criteria are not questioned: T'hey are fair. In
c o n t r a s t . c u l t u r a l d i t f e r e n c e sa r e h i g h l i g h t e d :" l c a n ' t r e l a t e t o h e r " ( R , D i r ) . " T h e y
h a v e a d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s y s t e m " ( R , D i r ) . T h e c o n s e q u e n c eo f s u c h s t a t e m c n t s i s
clear: I can't accept within my working context and'world rf life' someone who wars
very tar fn;rn it in thc first piace. Exclusion is mainly established by means of
 Sexisntin the discourse of Spanish executives 465

emphasizing
dittbrences.

3. The taboo of discrimination:There is 'wire-pulling'andpoliticking,but there is

no discnmination. Even the expressionitselfis avoided:'Whateveryou call it', and
SO ON.

4. Innocence and the way to build a positivesocialimage:Ignoringwomen is not a

'conscious
habit'."You don't even think about choosinga woman",althoughthere
is alsoa certainwariness:"Your chancesof gettingit wrong are smaller".In this
way,the speakerreinforceshis imageas "actingin a responsible way in the face of
reality":Potentialopportunitiestbr making mistakesare avoided.As in the next
example, the 'objectivity'of the decisionagainstthe promotion of women can be
emphasized usinga play on words involvinghomosexuality:

(6) Yo desdeluego siempreme lrc tirado por los hombres,y me guslon las
telt? (r,sus).(R.Dir:41)
ntuJeres,

'Of course,I have alwaysgclne

tor men, and I like women, don't I?'
( l a u g h t e r s()R
. Dir:41)

Thisplay on words appearsbecausethe speakerexpectsto get the consensusof

malegroupeasily.He doesnot expectany reticencefrom men becauseeveryman
is witltmertwhen he is againstwomen.This is their logic.

5.Thesedifferences
can turn into an argumentaboutthe processof promotion:Not
to discnminatc
women is to discriminatemen, as in the next fragmentof the group
discussion:

\t ',7,\ , Hay muclrcts lrtmbres y yo por lo mertos tn me meto ah[, de esas

rewiortes que te jwttus veitilicirtco, te empiezas o pelear y empiezas a
soltar [ocos, Iny muclta gente qLte se queda cortado si hay una mujer
delatte (...) pero de olro presidente y tal u kt mejor no le gusta, y es otra
fonna de discimirnci1rt rto poderse expresorcomo e1...corio y todo este
tipo de tocos rtos salen prtr todos los lados en cttalquier momento, sobre
Iodo en wt momento cle erfrentumiento. (R. Dir:38)

'There
are a lot of men -but I don't includemyself-,in thosemeetings
with about twenty five rnen,and everybodybeginsto tight and swear,
so there are a lot of peoplewho can't open the mouth once there is
a woman present(...)but the president[of the company]may not like
it, and this is another way of discrirnination:He cannot express
him s e l fa s h e w a n ts ...'(R . D i r:3 8 )

The presenceof a woman breaks the domain of men, their logic of

communication, their'freedom'of communication. This is an 'objective'obstacle
to
thepromotionof women at work. Furthermore,in the lastsentence, we can seehow
a genericterm (gentel'people')is used as a male term, contrastingwith 'a woman'.
466 Luisa Martin Rolo and Jav'ier Callcjo Gallego

The fact that they change their ludgements and attitudes regarding the
c r i t e r i a t o r p r o m o t i o n w h e n t h e t o p i c o f w o m e n i s i n t r o d u c e d i s p o s s i b l yb e c a u s e ,
in principle. the referent of general discussionson the workplace is cxclusivelymale"
These argument strategies cannot be disconnected from the image the speaker
projects (Gotfman 19tt6a; l9t36h): They are an attempt at self-exonert\tion.

4. The linguistic organisation of masculine discourse: Inhibited sexism

ln the follclwing section we analyze the strategies and discourse procedures tl-tzrt
r e v e a l t h e p r e s e n c e o f d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f s e x i s m :T h e f i r s t s e c t i o n ( 4 . 1 ) f b c u s e s o r l
a n d r o c e n t r i s m a n d t h e d i s a p p e a r e n c ec l f w o m e n , a n d r v i l l a l l o w u s t o c o n s i d e r b o t h
a s p c c t si n r e l a t i o n t o p c r s o n a l e x p er i e n c e s .T h e s e c o n c sJ e c t i o n( 4 . 2 ) , c r l r r e s p o n d i n g
to the process of objectivisation of what has previously been subjective,ullows us tcr
c o n c e n t r a t e o n r a t i o n a l i s e ds e x i s m .I n b o t h t h e r e i s i n h i b i t i o n .

4.I. Inhibited androcentrism: A radical exclusion prrx:edure

The differcnt groups coincide in opening the discussionby tircustng on the

w o r k p l a c e a n d a v o i d r n ge x p l r c i tr e f e r e n c e st o w o m e n , a n d n o t s h o w r n ga n y f e a t u r e s
w h i c h w o u l d e x p l i c i t l y m a k e t h e d i s c o u r s ea p p l i c a b l e t o t h e m . T h e s e t a c t i c s l r f
i g n < l r i n gt h e e x i s t e n c eo f w o r n e n a r e a c o n s e q u e n c eo f t r a d i t i o n a l a n d r o c e n t r i s m ,
a n d t h e y c o n t i n u e t o b e u s e d u n t i l t h e m o d e r a t o r i n t r o c i u c e st h e i s s u e o f g e n d e r i n
the conversation.
The Spanish language has an overt svstem of grammatical gender, in which
a g e n d e r o p p o s i t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d( i n p r o n o u n s , n o u n s ,a d j e c t i v e sa n d d e t e r m i n e r s )
between female, defined as the marked term or intensive,and male, the unmarked
or extensive term. When the specification of gender is not desired or the gen<lerof
t h e p e r s o n a l r e f e r e n t i s u n k n o w n . t h e m a l e t e r m h a s t o b e u s e d .T h i s o r g a n i z a t i c l n
of gender has been considered discriminatory by many authors (see, for example,
V i o l i 1 9 8 7 :P e r i s s i n o t t o1 9 8 2 ;N i s s e n1 9 9 1 ; F e r n 6 n d e zL a g u n i l l i r1 9 9 1 ) .I t a l l o w st h c
participation of women to be hidden, and in fact it does produce this social etfect,
s i n c e , a s s o m e e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c hs h o w s .t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n tt e n d e n c y t o i n t e r p r e t
male terms as intensive (male) and not as extensiveterms (both female and male)
(see Perissinoto 1982). Nevertheless,even if the linguistic system of'fbrs this choice
of the extensive male terms. it is quite relevant that our speakers never
spontaneously make specific references to women. or mention explicitly the gender
'When
of the workers they are talking about, by using phrasessuch as: I hire a man
o r a w o m a n ' o r ' m e n a n d w o m e n d i r e c t o r sw e h a v e ' ( l o s d i r e c t o r e sy d i r e c t r ; r a sq u e
t e n e m o s ) . T h e u s e o f t h i s t y p e o f e x p r e s s i o ni s n o t v e r y c o m m o n i n S p a r n - i n s p i t e
o f t h e p o l i c y c a r r i e d b y T h e M i n i s t e r i o d e E d u c a c i 6 n( 1 9 8 8 ) a n d b y t h e l n s t i t u t o d e
l a M u j e r ( 1 9 8 9 ) . H o w e v e r . i t i s i n t e r e s t i n gt o p o i n t o u t t h a t S p a n i s h i s n o w s h o w i n g
a clear tendency towards the formation of femenine forms for the names of
p r c f ' e s i o n s( N i s s e n 1 9 9 1 ) .
However. from the absence of specific references and the use of exclusively
masculine terms it cannot be deduced that the ret-erencesbeing made in the
discussion are exclusively to men: Some of the terms employed rio (guy); seltor
(rnen): pepito or .fulanito (Mr So-and-so) could be thought of, although with some
 Sc-vs'rr
in thc di.scourse
of Sooni.sh
e-r('cutive.t461

d i t f i c u l t y .a s t e r m s w h i c h r e f e r t o b o t h w o m e n a n d m e n . S u c h t e r m s c a n b e
'low'gencrics.
consideredirs if compared with other possible choices llke indit,iduo,
g i v e n t h a t t h e y s u g g e s ta s p c c i f i c i n t e r p r c t a t i o n . " A s a c o n s e q u c n c e ,d i s c o u r s e i s
a m b i s u o u s .w i t h r e g a r d s t o t h e g e n d e r o f t h e p e o p l e w h c l m a k e u p t h i s l a b o u r
w o r l d . S u c h a m b i g u i t y i s a l l o w e d a n d s u p p o r t e d b y g r a m n ) a t i c a lg e n d e r . T h i s t a c t
hecomeseven more confusing by the use of./eritine e.ttettsit'e tenns, such:rs (tma)
'high
p e r s o n o( ' p e r s o n ' ) : o r ( l u ) g e r t e ( ' p e o p l e ' ) . r v h i c h c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d a s
-{enerics'llH . o w e v e r . o n c e t h e m o d e r a t o r i n c l u d e s t h e i s s r - r eo f g e n c l e r i n t h e
discussion (the true objcct of invcstiuationw , hich is unknown to the participants).
a number of phenomena appear which make it clear that the referents of the
d i s c u s s i o hn a v e b e c n p r e d o m i n r r n t l vm r r s c L r l i n eu.p t o t h a t p o i n t . T h e s e p h e n o m e n z r
s h o wt h e i n t c r p r e t a t i o na s s i g n e da n d , a t t h e s a m e t i m e , p l a y a r o l e i n w h : t t s p e a k e r s
w a n t t o a c h i c v eb v m e a n s o f t h e u s e o f m a l e a n d _ { e n e r i cf i r r m s . I n a p a r a l l e l r v a y .
t h e v c h a n g e n o t o n l v t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h c d i s c u s s i o n ,b u t a l s o t h e s t r a t e g i e s f i l r
a r t u i n g .T h e u s e < l f t h e s e g e n e r i c t e r m s . w h i c h h i d e t h e i r s p c c i f i c r e f e r e n c e .c a n h e
c o n s i d e r c da s t h e c o n s c q u e n c eo f t h e i n l i i b i t i o n o f a n d n r c e n t r i s m .
A m i l n q t h e r e s o u r c c st h a t r e v e a l u n c l c r l v i n ga n d r o c e n t r i s m w, h i c h e n t a i l st h a t
r e f e r c n t so f d i s c o u r s ea b o u t w o r k a r e p r e f e r a b l v r n e n , t h e r c a r e t h e f o l l c l w i n g :
1. Alternating terms: Generic fcnrale terms such as persono ('person') or
g e r i l e( ' p e o p l c " ) ( c p i c c n e t e r m s ) s c e m i n t e r c h a n g e a b l er n t h e d i s c u s s i o nr n i l v t o r
m a s c u l i n et e r m s l i k e : I i o ( ' g u y ' ) ; s e i i r r ( ' m a n ' ) : I ' c p i t o ( ' M r S o - a n d - s o " ) e. t c .
2 . C c n d e r a g r c c m c n t : G e n t c ( ' p e o p l c ' ) a n d p e r . \ o n { t .(\' p e o p l e ' ) a r e t y p i c a l l y
c o m b i n e c iw i t h m z r s c u l i n ep r o n o u n s . r v h i c h r e s t r i c t s t h e i n c l u s i v e v a l u e o f t h e
a n t c c c d c n t sa.n d i n d i c a t e st h a t t h e r c f c r c n t s f r o r n w h i c h t h e d i s c o u r s ci s c o n s t r u c t e d
a b o u tt h e w o r k p l a c e a r e c o n c ep t u a l i z e da s r n e n . G c n d e r i r g r e e m e n td e p e n d s o n t h e
s e xo f a n o n g i v c n r e f c r e n t r i l t h e r t h r i n o n t h c g e n d e r c l a s so f t h e a n t e c c d e n t ,

(tt) Katte pro.fesiorrul.te llevu.sbictr o trrul c'ort ellos. (RC, Dir)

'professionul
p e o p l e ( g c i l t e .f e r n e n i n et e r m ) . y o u f e e l g o o d r l r b a d w i t h
t h e m ' ( e l l o . t ,m u s c u l i n e ) .( R G . D i r )

3 . M odif ier sS
: omc s e m e rn tigca p s o c c u r i n th c di scourse, parti cul arl yw hen the
modcratrrr focusesthe discussion on womcn.Frorn this point on, terms like persottu
('p er s on' )and gc n te (' p e o p l e )' , w h i c h i l re .fe mi rti tteextert.si ve
tenns appear
a cc om panied bv mo d i fi e rsth a t re s tri c th
t e i r m e a n i ngand stressthe femal egender:

person(rs.femenittus('t'emale people') (RG, Dir)

persottostrtujeri:s('fenrale pcople') (RG, Dir)

The examplcs in (9) and (10) indicate horv,bcfore the question of wornen

' ' P c r i s s i n o t t os t u d i c s
hou' malc tcrms are usuallv indcrstood as intcnsivc (cxcluding
w o m c n ) .T h i s a u t h o r o u t l i n e d a s c ; r l co [ g c n c r i c s .i n u ' h i c h h t n r i t r t ( n t u n ) g c t s a l ( ) 1 , 1o l ' { c n c n c
i n t c r p r c t a t i o nw, h i l c t n d i v i d u or c a c h c sa n l t 0 7 ( s c c P c r i s s i n o t t o1 9 1 3 23:l ) .

1 2 T h c v o b t a i n a 9 0 ( ; "or f q e
n c r i c i n l c r r r r c t a t i o n si.n P c r i s s i n o t t i l ' ss c a l c .
46tJ Lui.srtMurtin Rojotrul Jay'icrCulltjrtGullcgo

a r i s c s ,t h e r e f e r c n t o f p e r s o t t o( ' p c r s o n ' ) , i t n d o f t h e d i s c o u r s ei n g e n e r a l , h n s b e e n
prcdomrnantly male. Fctrms like persortus.femettitttt.sa,re extremely unusual in
Spanish. and ciearly strcss how the tendency to make a specific or intensive
rntcrprctittiott of male terms is cxtended to t'emalegenerics.Both malc and t'emalc
genenc terms offer differerrt interpretative possibilities,which allow speakers to
expresstheir c<lmmon concc[)tionof thc world of wurk places(McConnell-Ginet
19f3ft:95):

(e) ettiotrc:escuctttdo lti t,tt.su elcgir vcs qLrc tto, que rn tiertes ct rtittgtttttt
personu femettiltu puru elegir y es que no lu lruv, en cumbir) ett otrus
rufttu.\. (RG, Dir)

'So
w h e n y o u a r e g o i n _ qt o c h o o s c y o u s e e t h a t y o u d o n ' t , y o u d o n ' t
h a v e i t n y " t e m a l e p e r s r ) n " to choosc from. ancl its because there
a r c n ' t a n y . L r n l i k ei n o t h e r b r a n c h e s '( R G , D i r )

( It ) 1 sott rtrveles de uuriliures o de udmirtistrutivos dotuJe lut1, tuttt serie de

parvntus rrtujeres ttue vit'ert de cllo que tietrctr que gotutrse lu vida, y
olrus qu( hiert asldtt cttsudu.s, e'rtgerrcrul estdtt cttsadus o sobre todo
ucuhurt ric tutcr urt c'rfuto u.;(...(RG, Dir)

'At
thc auxiliirrv or administrativc ievels there are these "ternale
p e r s r ) n s "t h a t l i v c f r l r t h e i r 1 o b . a n d o t h e r s t h a t a r e e i t h e r m a r r i e d , i n
g e n e r a l t h e y a r c n i a r r i e d u r u s u a l l yh a v c j u s t h a d a k i d o r s o m e t h i n g
. . . ' ( R G .D i r )

F r o m t h c i n d e t en n i n a t i o n i n t h e l i n g u i s t i cp r c s e n t a t i c l no f w o r k e r s w h o c a n
be employed and promoted. the sp*rkcrs movc to a new stage, in which they use
m a n y s t r a t e g i e so f d e t e r m i n a t i o n o t ' w o m e n a s p e o p l e w h o a r e n e i t h e r v a l u e d n o r
employed (tirr thc study o1' lin-quistic resources of bclth determinatic>n and
indetermination. see virn Leeuwen 1995: l6). These examples could be seen as
paradigmutic institncesof a theorl, that "people are rnale unless proven otherwise,
t h a t f e m a l e n e s si s c o n t r a s t e dw i t h m a l e n c s si n b e i n g a s p e c i a l a n d d i s t i n c t i v ef o r m
o f h u m u n n c s s . a r n a r s i n a l c o n d i t i o n " ( N , l c C o n e l l - G i n e t tl 9 t t u : 9 3 - 9 4 ) . A t a n y
m c l m e n t . s u c h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , b y w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t sm a k e e x p l i c i t t h e c o n n e c t i o n
between typicalitv and malenc.ssin work pliices, seems to be controversizrl,but
s h a r e d b y p a r t i c i p a n t s .a n c l s o c i a l i vs i t u a t e d .
U n d e r l v i n g a n c l r o c e n t r i s ma l l o w s u s t o s p e a k o i i n h i b i t i o n , a n d c a n b e
c o n s i d e r e di t s u t a c t i c o f i g n r t r a n c :aen d e v i r s i o n e , q u i v a l e n tt o o t h e r p r a c t i c e ss t u d i e d
h v v a n D i j k i n c o r p o r a l e d i s c o u r s ea b o u t c t h n i c m i n o r i t i c s( s e e v a n D U k 1 9 9 1 :c h . 4 ) .
A t f i r s t . u p J r a r c n t l y .t h e t w o s t r a t e g i e so f e x c l u s i o ne s t a b l i s h e db y F o u c a u l t ( 1 9 1 1 ) ,
'division"and'rejection'.
i l r e n o t e x p l i c i t l , ve m p l , r y e d :l ' h a t r s .a d i v i d i n g l i n e b e t w e e n
m c n i t n d w o m e n i n t h c w o r k p l a c e i s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d ,n e i t h e r i s t h e r e a c c t n f l i c t
bctween bctth groups luter nn. Folkrwing van Leeuwen in his study clf "The
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s o c i a l a c t o r s " .w e c c t n s i d e rt h i s t o b e a k i n d o f e x c l u s i o n w h i c h
l e a v e s n o t r i t c c s i n t h c r e p r e s c n t i t t i o n ,m : r k i n g b o t h t h e s o c i a l a c t u r s a n d t h e i r
a c t i v i t i e s d i s a p p e a r ( s e c v a n L c e u w e n 1 9 9 5 b ) : G e n e r i c a n d a l l - i n c l u s i v et e r m s ,
whose rcferents may be hoth men and womcn, ilre used. However, such 'radical
 Sc-rrsnr
tn th( discaurse
of Spanislterecutiv'es 469

e x c l u s i o n ' s h o w us p o n c e w o m e n a p p e a r o n t h e s c e n e ,a n d t h e p h e n o m e n a i n d i c a t e d
above show that. up to thrrt moment, the referents of the discoursewere exclusively
m a l e ,a n d w o m c n h i r d i n f n c t b e e n e x c l u d e d .O n c e w o m e n a p p e i l r o n t h e s c e n e ,t h e
s t r a t e g i c so f e x c l u s i o nd o n o t d e p e n d o n s i m p l e o m i s s i o n :t h e y s t o p b e i n g i m p l i c i t .
T h e s t r a t c g i c so f s e x i s mc : a nn o w b e s e e n a s h e i n g b a s e d o n a r g u m e n t s .

4.2. The exclusion of women from the lahour world: The argurnentation of sexism

Argument-basedsexism entails the use of a dift-erentkind <lf exclusion procedure,

w h i c h i s a r t i c u l a t e do n t w o a x e s ( F o u c a u l t 1 9 7 1 ) :D I V I D I N G , t h a t i s , e s t a b l i s h i n g
t h e c a t e g u r i e sw h i c h w i l l b e o p p o s e d ( c a t e g o n z a t i o n a n d c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f
p r o c e s s e sa ) :n d R E J I T C T I N G , t h a t r s .s e g r e g a t i n gr,n a r g i n a l i s i n gc. r e a t i n ga n e g a t i v c
i m a s e( a r g u m e n t a t i o n :U s e o f a n e c d o t e s o . v e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n ) .B o t h m o v e s .d i v i s i o n
a n d r e j e c t i o n .c a n n o t b c d i s s o c i a t e d- t h e y t a k e p l a c e s i m u l t a n e c l u s l v .

1.2.l. D^'idirtg: Dissociutiotr urtd cutegrtri:utiort

Dividing entails a proccss of categorization of individuals into groups (specially by

meansof lexicalization)and a conceptualizationof pnlcesses(sy'ntacticand semantic
structuresof sentences).The catcgorizrition of indrviduals into groups produces a
particularorganization of pcrceptions and judgements. The meaning clf these
c a t e s o r i e st ,h e i r f u n c t i o n s ,a n d t h e i r s o c i a la n d p s v c h o l o g i c am
l eaningis established
throu_r{h discourse.and they changc when this context changes, which means that
they are "1lart of thc collcctrve domain of negcltiaticln,debate, argumentative and
r d e o l o g i c asl t r u g g l e "( s e e W e t h e r e i l a n d P o t t e r 1 9 9 2 : 7 7 ) .
The tirllowing examples show how the ternrs used to refer to women produce
a clasificationinto two grc)ups:

(11) -o estospue.\tosde mds re.sportsuhilidud,

Iu mayortaesldttdivorciadasct
xtlterus...
- No, ltatt llegutlo o esospuaslo.tporque, se han dit,orciudo y se hsn
tladic:adoa lct ernpresutotultrtcttteo estussol{erut1t te dedicas a ln
empresuy que su umbicitirt es ulcurtzur Lut puesto imporlattte ett lu
etnpresu... ( RG, Dr: 23-21).

' at th e s em u n a g e m e npt o s i ti o n sa n d posi ti onsof respcl nsi bi l i ty,

most
of t h e m a re d i v o rc e d< l rs i n g l e ...
- No , th e vh a v ere a c h e dth e s ep o s i t i ons,
because thcyare di vorcedand
they beconrccompletelydevotedto the company,or becausethey are
singleand they are cievotedto thc company,and their anrbitionis to
get a n i mp rl rta n tp o s i ti o ni n i t'

(12) lu que cortcilislutgury,trubujo,v,lu que

dos tipo.sde ntttjertrubujucloru,
I uc l u t"(R G. D i r:1 5 ).

'two
kinds of workinu women. those whu make home and work
4l(\ Lttt.stt Llrtrtin Rcl() ttni! .luyrt'r Cttllcto (ittllt,,grt

c o m p a t i b l e .a n d t h o s e w , h of i g h t

A s c ; t n b e s e c n i n c x : t m p l c sl i k c t h c s c .s p e a k e r sa c t i v a t et w o : r x e so f d i v i s i g n :

l. A i i r s t a x i s o t ' r i i v i s i o n ,w h i c h s e p a r a t e sm c n i l n c i w o l n e n . p r o d u c i n g
a c o n t r i i s t r v h i c h . n o w e v e r . r e r n a i n sl m p l i c i t "
A s c c o n c l i t x l s o t ' d i v r s i o r r .r v i t h i n t h e { I r o u p o f w o m e n . w h i c h
c li s t r n g ur s l . r c sb e t r v c cn :

it)'wtlinen rvt.tocittt be prtimoted'(iri.spromrrciornblcs or (!ue llegun),

rvttttsc prtltotvpc ts the 'non-m()thcr wolrun' Qnuler nri mudre),
spinstcrs. divorcces. widows and unattrilcttvc worncn (.las solleru.s,
divrrc'iutitts.viudus,lus feus) (RG. Dir:22). The process <tfassociation.
r c a l i z c d b v p i t n t t l t x i s( s c c . v a i r L e e u w e n 1 9 9 5 b : I 4 ) e n t a i l s i r n
idcnttttcutton ol' thcsc 'womcn who can bc promctted'
( l t n r r t t o c ' i o r t u h l e i. ns ) t e r n r s o f t h e i r e r n o t i o n i t l a n d p c r s o n a l f a i l u r e .
-l'itts
prcscnti.ttl()n t s c l c i t r l v c v a l u a t r v c .T o t h r s g r o u p b e l o n g a l s o , i n
solnc citscs,wontcn (lu.;que ituc'enopo.sic:iotte.i). who take conrpetitivc
cxalnination to thc civil sen,ice.
'wonten
h) who urc not mzrtcrial tclr promotion' (las ,:o
p r r t m o c i r t n b l e s ) . ' w o m e n w h o c l i s c r i i n i n a t ea g a i n s t t h e m s e l v e s ' ( / a ^ s
quc \e uulrrc.rc'lrn'c'rt).'those who are not ctrpuble'(lu.sque no llegan):
r i ' o r k t n g n r o t l t c r sw h o r v r l r k t o n t a k c a I i t t l c p i n m < l n c v .

A t t h c h c l t r t o f t h i s r ) p p o s i t i o nt h c r e l i e s t h e n o n - w r t r k i n gm o t h e r , w h o n c t s
:.ls it ret'crcnt. c,u'cn it' lier prcsencc is not crplicitly titrmulated (tbllowing our
i r n a l v s i s t. h e y e r n b o c i i c ctl h e p r o t t l t v p e o l ' r v t l m e n ) .T h c p r c s e n t a t i o nw e m a k e h e r e
o f t h r s t i t x o n i t t t t vi s n o t c r h a u s t i v e .h u t t h e e x a m p l e sw e i n c l u d e s l r o w t h a t i t p l z r y s
r ur c l c v a n t r o l c i n t h e r l c v e k ) p m e n tt t f t h c u r g u m e n t u t i o n .
-l-hcrc
i t r c n u m b c r o f d i f f c r c n t k i n d s o f a t t r i b u t e sa n d a c t i o n s o f b o t h t y p e s
t t f r v t t m e t r .r v i r i c h c a n n o t t r c a n a l v z c d i n d e t a i l i n t h i s p a p e r . N e v e r t h e l e s sb c t t h w i l l
b c r e f ' c r r c d t o i n t h c c r i t r n i n a t i o no f u n c c d o t c sb c k t w , ( s e e G r ' l m e z e ta l . . l 9 9 5 :c h . 2 ,
t ' c t r i t d c t a i l c d l t n r t l v s i so f t h e i r n u q e s o f w o m c n i n c o r n p e t i t i v e w r t r k c o n t e x t s ) .
R e l a t c d t o t h t s i - r t t r n tr.v h i r t i s n r o r c r c l e v l r n t i s t h c r o l e p l a v e d b v t h i s t a x o n o m y i n
I t r q u n l c n l i t t i o n : I i t t h k r n d o f r v o n r c ni r r c e l c a r z r q c n t so 1 ' t h c i r o w n d i s c r r n t a t r o n :

{l3) E. Y'o tt() ('ra() quL, ltu\{i di.scrimittttc'iritt

ctt ub.xtluto...
[). r.tItt']
tl

E. Qttierri dccir qua no crao que ltut'u di.;c'rintinacidtt...

l . E . i q u L ' l d r n u i t ' r t , . s . st uc i l o < , l i r n i r t t tnt ltt t t u o , ? 1 c t t t t , .(.R
. G, Dir:18).

'l
E- d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t d i s c r i m i n a t i o ne x i s t s .n o t a t a l l . . '
'cJon't
D- vou'.)'
'l
E- m e a n t h a t I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t d i s c r i m i n a t i o ne x i s t s '
'What
[r- h i r p p c l t s i s t h a t \ \ ' o n t e nd i s c r i m i n i l t et h e l n s e l v e s
 Sr'rr.rnrtn thc tliscourserf ,stxtttislte.rccutiv't's 47 1

I n c c l n t r a s tw i t h s e c t i o n 4 . 1 . . i n t h i s c A S ew e s e e a t e n d e n c v t o w a r d s t h e
d e t e r m i n u t i o no f a g c n t s a n d a c t i i l n s .b v g i v i n g a l o t o f n c g a t i v e c l a t a .T h i s f a v o u r s
t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s s' e l f - e x o n e r a t i o n .

1.2.2.Atrcc:dolesus meclturtisrtts o.f rcjcc'tiort

R e j e c t i o na f f e c t s b o t h k i n d s o f w o m e n , i r n d t h e p r o c e d u r c s u s e d a r e t h e s a m e .
Anecdotesplay an essential role in carrying out exclusion pror:edures.Arnong their
f u n c t i o n st h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d o u t : a ) t h e p r e s e n t a t i o no f e x a m p l e s o f b e h a v i o u r s ,
which persuasively transmit and confirm the stereotypes; b) through them the
mechanisrnsof generalizaticlnwhich are uriented towards the exclusion of women
are put into practice; c) they produce an overdetcrminationof women; d) they
p e r m i t t h e p r e s e n t a t i o no f a n e g a t i v e i m a g e o f u ' o m e n , w h o a p p e a r a s t h e a g e n t s
o f t h e i r o w n e x c l u s i c l nT. h r s n e g a t i v e p r e s e n t a t i o no f w o m e n h a s i t s c o r c l l a r y i n a
p o s i t r v es e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o no f m e n .

1 . 2 . 2 . 1P. a t t c r n sa n d s c h e m a t a o f a n e c d o t e s

A) Partrcipants: Mujeres-mudres ('rnother-wome n'). mujeres-lrabajadoras

('workingwomen'), mtleres trubujudoru.s rnttdres('working mothers').
B) A c t ions :
. mujercstrabujudorasmudres('workingrnothers'):Ir u por los ttiftosal colegio
('to fetch the children from school')(RG, Dir:20, 43), cuidar u los rtirios
cuaiu.laestdnerqfermos ('to look after thc childrenwhen they are ill') (RG,
Dir : 4, 1)lt. ac e rl u c e ttu(' to p re p a reth e d i n ner' )(R G,D i r:21,22,50),and scr
on.
. mttjerestrabajadoras(wurking women): Pusurcosusu mdqttirta ('to type
documents')(RG. Dir:22), totnur cu.ften horuscleirabajo ('to have coffee in
wcrrk time') (RG, Dir: 22), c:otillenr('to gossip"),negarsea quedarse
trubujurtfut.fueru del lutrufut de o.ficirn ('to refuse to work outside the
timetatrle')(RG, Dir:20),uburttlornrcurreros prometedoras, sirtrazrlrtaparente
( ' t o giv eup p ro mi s i n gc a re e rsw, i th c l uat n vapparentreason' (R ) G, D i r: 17-1U .
25. et c . ) ; Sp e c i fi ca c ti o n so f w o rk i n g w omen: S cr trepus(' to be soci al -
climbers')(RG, Dir:28-29).ccpillur.;e u kts tios ('to go to bed with men'),
utilizarlos utructiv,os ('to make use of their physicalatributes')(RG,
.l-[sic'os
Dir:29).ser rnurukntuso tirurtus('tcl he bossyur tvrannical')(RG. Dir:44-
4- 5. 48)et. c .
c) Localization:Time and space.Space is nurrnallyenvisagedin terms clf
everydayplacesand not synrbolic.An insideand an outside dimensionrs
dis t inguis h e T dh : e h o m e a n d th e w o rk p l a ce.The home i s presentedas the
pr ot ot y pic apl l a c efi rr w o me n ,w h i l eth e i n t erests()f men are mai nl voutsi de:
f ur t hem , t h e w o rk p l a c ep l a y sa c c n tra ln rl e, togetherw i th pubs or other
m eet ingpla c e s(R G, D i r:4 3 ).So , fo r w o men to l eavethei r typi cal-nearl y
natural- space, very often entails negativejudgements.As regards the
t em por alax i s ,th e a n e c d o tere s fe rto th e h erc and now :W hen theyare tol d,
412 Lutsu Mortin Rolo onri Jat'ier Cattelo Gallego

a particulilr vrew of the state of affairs is imposed. This axis has a key rclle
l n t h e s t r u c t u r i n g o f d i s c r ) L r r s eb,e c a u s e s p e a k e r s a r e d e a l i n g w i t h s o c i a l
c h a n g e s .t h o s e r e l a t e d t o t h e s i t u a t i o n o f w o m e n . S o m e o f t h e m a r e a l r e a d y
a c c o r n p l i s h e d ,o t h e r s a r e o r e d i c t a b l e "
D) E x p r e s s i o n o f f e e l i n g s .A n e c d o t e s e m b o d y t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ,
specially their contempt fur women whcl are devclted tcl their work (see.
s p e c i a l l y ,R G . D i r : 2 8 - 2 9 y 4 5 - 4 7 ) ,a n d t h e i r s c o r n t o w a r d s t h e t a s k n f b r i n g i n g
u p t h e c h i l d r e n ( s e e ,f i r r c x a m p l e ,( l l ) a n d ( 1 4 ) ) .

T h e a n e c d o t e s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e f a l l i n t o a p a t t e r n . I n t h e c z r s eo f c o v e r t
s e x i s m . w e h a v e s e e n t h a t m e a n i n g f u l a n e c d o t e sa r e u s e d . b u t t h e g e n e r a l i s a t i o n
i t s e l f i s n o t t i r r m u l a t e d . T h e s e z t n e c d o t e so p e r a t e a s a s t i m u l u s s o t l i a t t h e h e a r e r
i t r r i v e s a t t h e i n t e n d e d c o n c l u s i o nb y h i m s e l f .T h e t e n d e n c y t o a d m i t e q u a l i t y , i n
a b s t r a c t t e r m s , i n t h e t h e e x p l i c i t e x p r e s s i o no f c r i t i c a l j u d g m e n t s a n d o f n e g a t i v e
attrtudestowards women.

4 . 2 . 2 . 2 .M c c h i t n r s r n so f i n d u c t i o n a n d d c d L r c : t r o n

'I-he
a n a l y s i so f t h e a n e c d o t e s ( e x a m p l e s ( 8 ) a n d ( 1 0 ) ) r e v e a l s ,t h a t i n o r d e r t o
express and impose upon wornen their perception of their environment, men,
particularly those of managerial status.use a way of rcasoning that appears to
c o m b i n e s i n d u c t i o n a n d d e d u c t l o n : f . i n d u c t i o n : F r o m o b s e r v a t i o n s ,i n s t a n t i a t i n g
examples. -carefully selectecl anecdotes about women in the workplace-,
g c n e r a l i s i t t i o n sa b o u t w o m e n a r e d e r i v e d : W o m e n a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t l yd e v o t e d t c r
w o r k ; 2 . d e d u c t i o n : C e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n sa r e d r a w n : W o m e n l i m i t t h e i r c l w n c h a n c e s .
d i s c r i m i n a t e a g z r i n s t h e m s c l v e s :a n d p r e d i c t i o n sa r e m a d e : T h e s i t u a t i o n w i l l o n l y
chan,r.te when they chan_rle themselves,without which nothing will change. By means
of this strertegy,there is an attempt to legitimise masculine discourse, ii discourse
that. tirr its understanding and persuasiveness,requires the control of the negative
'Ihese
female stereotypesand clear masculinevalues that are typical of overt sexism.
stereotypes. though partly distorted as a result of the rationalisation that still holds
in the discourse, are marnly cierived from questions asked by the moderator about
t h e l i m i t e d p r e s e n c e o f w o m e n i n p o s i t i o n s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .A s G a r f i n k e l ( 1 9 t 3 4 :
1 8 4 ) s u g g c s t s .r a t i o n a l i s a t i o ni s n e c e s s a r ys i n c e e x p l a n a t i r ) n sa r e r e q u i r e d .

(l1) Yo os r'ov u cotttur utt coso, .suryi1 urt problemu, tne llam6 el direc:tor
o utto rewi1tt urgente por lu turde, y la setktritu qLte se lluma Elvira
dijo: "iulti, pues \,o tto nrc puedo quetlur, me tierrcn tpte uvisttr c'ott
veirttic'uutro lutrus, porque los ttinos...". Y dije ttsted .sequedu, y cluro,
pero es tlue lu sulitlu que tuvo Erc si lu contidu de los nirlos es que a ml
tro se me ocuffe, buerto es qtte ),o rto trubujar[a leriertdct rtitlos lo
pimero... (RG, Dir:20)

'l'm
going to tell you about one *rse, a problem came up, the boss
called me firr an urgcnt mcetinq fur the afternoon, and the girl,
called Elvira, said " Ah! Well, I can't stay, you have tct give me
t w e n t y - f o u r h o u r s n o t i c e ,b e c a u s et h e k i d s . . . "A n d I s a i d " y c l uh a v e t c l
 Sc.rrsnrin the dist'utrsc of Spunish ertclttives 473

stily", obviously, but the reason she gave was the kids'dinner. I would
never have think of. Well. I wouldn't work if I had kids ...' fRG.
Dir:20)

T r i p e r s u a d e o t h e r s a n d t h e m s c l v e s ,m e n u s c o b s e r v a t i o n a n c l i n d u c t i o n
( ' t h a t ' sw h a t w e s e e ' ; ' t h a t ' s w h a t h a p p e n s ' ;' w e a r e o b j e c t i v e ' ) .M e n w a n t t o p r e s e n t
the discourseas something clbjective,and not as the particular view of an individual
or a gender; their argument is bersedon a prejudice regarding'ilossible objectivity'
'objectivity
as as an ideal aim'. In this way, the weaving clf motives in this
argumentationstrate!ry,developed within the dynamics of the group, has the effect
of cclnsolidatingstereotypes-which of'fer direct support in overt sexism and indirect
'Women
support in inhibited sexism- and producing new ones: managers lack
t'eminineattributes'. At the same time, they project of their own positive image ("we
a r e n ' t t h e o n e s r e s p o n s i b l e " ) ,a n d e x c l u d e w o m e n .

(15) Y tiene su propio sistemade valores,porqueporo wn mttjer Io pimero

a Ia hora de tetter tut lijo b pioitario es dedicarsea su ltijo v la
empresuposo a seralgosecwtduio (RG, Dir:17y 18;vdasetunfii€tt I5
)' 29).
'They
have their own systemof values.For a woman the most
importantthing in lite is to havechildren,and the firm takessecond
pla c c '(R G, D i r:1 7y 1 ft;s e ea l s o 15y 29).

I n ar gum e n ta ti c linn,s te a do f a h i e ra rc h i cal i n w hi chi t seemsto

organi sati on
be necessarytcl give specific evidenceto support the statements,there is an
argumentschemaof the type: Central/peripheral. The value of women in the
workplaceis questioned,and so is their dedication,bv resortingto the peripheral,
that is to say,by evokinganecdotesconcerningperipheralmatters:Drinking coffee,
typing,the exampleof someonewho doesnot wish tcl attend a meeting,etc.

(16) Tti subes lo borito qLte es llegar a la oficirta y qLte te diga el jefe toma
Ituz esle papel a mdquirtu ), Iuc, lec, loc, sucor el informe y lomo pLtm,
u tomar cafd, iamos tto me digusi. Hny vecesque vierrcrt a la una y me
dicert nte duele el estdmugo, cluro sdlo toms.s ca.f€. No, rlo ddjate Ete
es muy bortito llegar o la o.fic'irtaque taigart el papelito :t que se va]tort
u casita lncer la comidu u lo.s ninos ), agLtarttor u kts tinos... (RG,
Dir:22,)

'You 'go
know how great it is to get tcl the oftlce and the boss says
'here
and type this paper and find me that report', you are', and then
you have a cot-fbe,isn't that right I There are times when they come
at one o' clock tcl tell me that they've got a stomachache,'of course,
you don't do anything except to drink coffee'. No, nc), fclrget it, its
great to get to the office and to type a bit of paper and go home to
make lunch firr the kids and put up with them' (RG, Dir:22)
41 4 Lurso lvlurtin Ro.1tt
ond .levt('rCullt'1oGullt,,gtt

4 . 1 . 1 . 3 .O v c r t l c t e n l u n r t ti t ) r t

I n t h e s e a n c c d o t e s . w o r ] . ) e ni r r c ( ) v e r d e t e r r n i n e d t, h a s , t h e y a r e r e p r c s e n t e d a s
p u r t i c i p a t i n g . a t t h c s a m e t i r n e . i n n r o r e t h a n o n e s o c i a lp r a c t i c c " ( s e e f o o t n o t e 1 0 ) .
I n o u r c a s c , t h i s p r o c l u c e si l n c x c e s so f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t w o m e n m i x i n g d e t a i l s
l ' r o n r d i f f c r c n t d o m a i n s , u n d f e a t u r e s o f t r a d i t i o n a l s t e r e o t y p e sa n d n e w i m a g e s o f
'l-hc
wrlrking women. e x a m p l es i n c l u d d i t f e r e n t k i n d s o f o v e r d e t e r m i n a t i c l ns, p e c i a l l y
t h a t c a l l e d b y v l u r L e c u r v e n ' i n v c r s i o n ' .i n w h i c h s o c i a l a c t o r s i l r e c o n n e c t e d t o t w ( )
p r i r c t i c e sw h i c h i r r c . l n i t c c r t r u nw t r v .o p p o s i t c s A : c t i v i t i e ss u i t a b l ef o r m e n ( t o s p e n d
t h c i r t i m e i t t t h e o t ' fi c c . t o r v r l r k t u r m o n c y . c t c . ) a n d a c t i v i t i e ss r - r i t a h l tei r r w o m e n
( t o k r o k a f t c r t h c c h i l d r e n .t o p r c p { r r ct h e d r n n e r .t o p a i n t t h e i r n a i l s ,t o m a k e u s e
o t ' t h e i r s c x u a l c l u a l i t i c s ) :t h e s e c o n c lk i n c l o f t r a d i t i o n a l l y a t t r i h u t e d a c t i v i t i e s
rnevitabiv prcvent them from doirrg first type -their rvork- properly. Since the
t r a c l i t i o n u l t y p e o f a c t i v i t y - t h o s e c o n s i d e r e ds u i t a h l e f o r w o m e n - ? l r e r e p e a t e d i n
i n c n s a n c c d o t c s r r i r r . l u t h e n r . s L r c ha c t i v i t i e sa r c p r e s c n t e d a s n a t u r i t l t o r v o m e n .
w h r i c t h e i r p l r o r n o t i o ni r t r v o r k r s c l i r s s i f i e di t s u n s u i t a b l cf o r t h c m .

4 . 2 . 2 . - +P. o s r t i v e / n c g a t r v cs c l f p r c s e n t i r t i ( ) n

'l'he
e x u m p l c s t ' r c k r r vs h o r v h o w e x c l u s i o nr s r c a l i s e d b y m e a n s o f t h e t w o p r a c t i c e s :
'division' 'rcjection'.
irncl D i v i s i o n o c c u r s p a r t r c u l a r l yr n t h t l s e a n e c d o t e st h a t a l k r w
t h e i m p l i c i t e s t a b l i s h n r e not l t w ' o d o n r a i n s :T h a t o f t h e h o m e , r u l e d b y w o m e n , a n d
t h a t o l ' t h c w r l r k p i a c c . r u l e d h v m c n . C ) n c et h i s i s e s t a b l i s h e d a . negativeim:rgeof
w o r n e n w h t r h r e a k i n t o t h e m a l e s p a c e i s g e n c r u t e d ,a n d t h e n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f
r n e n i n t h e h o u s e h o l d r s l u s t i f i c d . A n e c d o t e s z r r ea p o w e r f u l m e a n s o f c o n s t r u c t i n g
a n e g a t r v el m i r g e o f w o m e n , w h o a p p c a r a s t h e a g e n t s o f t h e i r o w n e x c l u s i o n .
The projcction of the nesutive image clf women plays a key role in the
rationalization of sexisrn ;rnd hidcs several contradictions that underlie male
d i s c o u r s e "I n n o c a s e , : r r c m e n p r e s e n t e d a s t h e a g e n t s o f t h i s d i s c r i m r n a t r o n .
(Exirrnplc13 is repcatcd hcre as 17;.

(l7) - Si, .ii,.. t' t'udu rez mus, \,o lo lrc notudo cadu t,ez luty tnu.sntujeras."
("..)
- Yo rtri crco quc luvu discrirnittuc'itirtut ubsolutrt..
- L t t o?
()
- Quicrc dec'ir que no creo qua lruyu disc'rimittucirlrt..
- Es qua lu rnujerasse uuto elirnitturt tnLttLtomatttec'utttrcloernpiezurt stt
vidu prut.f'csirnn1...

morc und mure. I've noticedthat there are more ;rnd

't
b e l i c v e th e r e ' s all ..
therc'.''

I m e u n r s t h u t I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e r e i s anv di scnmi nati on

...
 Scrisrrin the discourse
of Spanishexecutiv,es475

- 'lt's that womcn exclude themselves when they begin their

proffesionallife' (RG, Dir)

4 . 2 . 2 . 5P. u r p o s e o f t h e a n e c d o t e s

1. Anecdotes in the conversation are used to oblectivize the statements that are
made about women in the workplace. In this wily, statements about women seem
to be based on real expenences and not on evaluative judgments.
'this
2. The use of anccdotes supports and fbsters generalisationsof the type is not
a n i s o l a t e dc a s e ' o r ' a l l w o m e n a r e l i k e t h a t ' . b u t a l s o d i s t o r t s t h e i n f c l r m a t i o n .F o r
example,in ( 1a) the anecdote about the woman who did not wish to stay any longer
at u'ork than she was obliged tcl by her contract was used as evidence for the limited
commitment of women to the firm.
3. Anecdotes express once again the statements made about women, allowing the
hearer to infer others that are left implicit. Abductive reasoning is used so that, from
a consequence(the anecdote presented), an antecedent can be inferred by the
audience('women are like thzrt'),thanks to premises that they already have in their
m t n d s( P e i r c e 1 9 6 6 : 1 5 8 1 ) .T h e g e n e r a l i s a t i o ni s b a s e d o n p r e j u d i c e . A s i n a l m o s t
all the parts of the process of rationaliszrtion,it is fed by n pioi belief-s(Boudon
1 9 9 2 :I I I ) .
4 . A n e c d o t e sj u s t i f v s o c i a l o p e r a t i n g c o n s e q u e n c : e sD:i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s d e n i e d o r , a t
l e a s t .i s r u s t i f i e d .

5. The cognitive basis: Argumentation and categorization

As in all discourses.male discourse allows the establishingof distinctions: Women

vs. men: the domains clf women vs. the domains of men; t'emale qualities vs. male
qualities:situations of discrimination vs. situations of self'-discrimination,and so on.
At the same time it identifies phenomena. and allows the organization of
c x p c r i e n c ea
. nd the searchfor answers.
'self 'women
Each lexical choice (women who discriminate'; who are
committcd to working: Divorcees, spinsters,widows and unattractive women' and
so on) (example 5) has a role in organizing individual experience. The discourse
alklws us acccssto the conceptualization of the context, and that conceptualization
itself is the base on which the discourse rests, functioning as a set of shared
concepts that. being shared do not need to be made explicit. In this way, the
movement from observation to generalization and from there to the derived
consequencescan only be achieved by means of those understandings that, as
implicit premises, alkrw the hearer to make the appropriate deductions. The fact
that these premises irre not tbrmulated linguisticallymeans that to understand the
argumentand to persuade, it is necessaryto use negative stereotypesof women (the
prototype of the working woman is the secretary; the woman manager obtains her
position by means of her sexual qualities, and scl on) and purely masculine values
(successin lite is successin one's profession; children are a woman's responsibility,
and so on). In this way, example (18) requires for its understanding a high degree
of shared knowledge and judgements (which tasks women usually do; the woma.n
476 Luisa Martln Rojound Jav,ierCatlep Gatlego

who reaches a post achieves this by means of her sexual merit), such rrs male values
a n d h a b i t s , d e s c r i p t i o n so f h o w w o m e n e m p h a s i z et h e i r p h y s i c a la s p e c t sa n d i g n o r e
o t h c r q u a l i t i e s .e t c .

( 18) yo me acuerdo uttq chicu grac'ios{simaque ,[ue,pues surgi(t tut tema, ellrt
Ilevabo u,tos co,ttenedores pttra baxtra, vo rto s,! qu( ltucfa wta clica
vertdiettdo o alquilctndo contetrcdorespara basura. buon pues conlo ero
tun ab.utrdo la situaci1n, a mf me resultuba e.ytro,7opues que wtu chicrt
mono y tal cort un medio uttiforme, tutu clicu muv grac'iosu,irttertluru
ulEilarte o t,endcrle uno.t temos de cotttettedores de basuru pues Vo le
digo frartcumetrte qLte a mf eso pues me descerttrutbu,\,o sctbltt lo quc
co.stubu lo que prxlfa llcgur el prec'io Io Erc rto y lul, perut el Ete .fucru
cse lipo de clicu y rto st Erc pues rn lu veiu ert ese tnonletilo y de
ulgtutu fonnu mc setttiu rutro, yo creo rtue ellus lo Lttiliztut, imagilut que
el director de mdrketirtg o de comercial de esu empresu utilizabn clricus
en ese senlldo porquc erutt rttuclto md\ no se, etttrubtttt rnds, o vetulftt
wt proclucto tun (\trutio cotno €sepues coti Luto rupidez. (RG, Prof:19)

' l r eme mb e ra c u te g i rl w h o w a s .w e l l thi s subj ectcame up, she w as

hand l i n gru b b i s hc o n ta i n e rsa,n d I don' t know w hat a gi rl w as doi n-{
s ellin go r re n ti n gru b b i s hc o n ta i n e rs, annvayas i t w zrssucha stupi d
s it u: rti o nI. fe l t w e i rd th a t i t w a ss u c ha beauti fulgi rl l i ke that w i th a
kind of unifurm. a really cute girl, trying to rent you or sell you
s ome th i n gto d o w i th ru h b i s hc o n t ai ners, w el l to be frank i t real l y
threw me, I knew what it costs,what the price would be and what it

:::1i i^1.i1,
?i,r, I?:1t"',,1
i:;ff:II3';'J::l',? ii:1
:If ?,:: lil,X,l
of strange,I think that they useit, I guessthat the marketingrlr sales
director of that companywas usinggirls like that becausethey were
much more, I don't know, they gcltthroughmore, or could sell such
a struingeproduct as that reallyfast' (RG, Prof:19)

To go beyondthe thct that "the girl waspretty and very pleasing",to the fact
that she was able to sell thingscluickly,and finally,to the generalization(l believe
that "they make use of it" withclutspecifyingwhat it is that they make use of), it is
necessaryto deducethat she used her physicalqualitiesas a woman to sell. This
conclusionis supportedin the tact that it seemedstrangeto hirn that she appeared
to take it seriously.From this rather inconclusive anecdote,it is dedr,rced that "they
make use of it". and what is evenworse.it is not evenwomen themselves, but their
b o s s eswho
, t ak e a d v a n ta g eo f w o m e n ' ss e x u a a
l t tracti ons
and reap the benefi ts.
One of the conclusionswe can draw from this exampleis "that they are
u seles st,hey ar e t ro u b l e s o m ea, n d i f th e y g e t th ere w e al l know w hy i t i s" . The
stereotypesand male valuesalkrw this reasoningtcl be used and, to be taken as
so m et hinggener a l l ya g re e du p o n ,s i n c eth e s ei n terpretati onsdo not appearto l ead
to divergenceamong the group. The anecdotesrevert to these stereotypes,
reafflrmins them.
 Sexisnt
in the discourse
of Spanishexecutiv'es477

6. The core of argumentation: Rationalization and self-exoneration

By means clf the dialogic organization of discclurse,other discourses are invoked

within discourse. In this case, the legitimate discourse is always present implicitly,
and _{oeswith and explains the denials of discrimination, by these who are
responsibletor recruitment and promotion. Legitimate discourse is part of a frame
that is presupposed. and has been agreed upon, and provides the context in which
actionsand utterances are to be taken (Got'fman 1961; 1986a).Even if, in everyday
interaction, there always remains some degree of uncertainty, the assumption of
legitimate discourse, precisely because of its nature, easily becomes a shared
perspective.Participants cannot admit their sexism,which entails the transgression
of le_qitimatediscourse.They have to avoid this transgressionand, as a consequence,
they plan their utterances so that they will seem non-sexist. In the same way,
women's discourse seems to accuse men of discrimination, and of this the
participantsseem to be perfectly aware. The awarenessof this transgressionand of
the existenceof the accusationsexplains why it finally becomes the main topic of
these conversations. Example ( 19) shows how the question introduced by the
moderator is understclod and reelaborated as a direct question about sexism and
discrimination:

(19) t,Ert esle uspec'to (promoc:ir1rt), el gIrcro es imporlarile? iQue sea

itombre o mujer?

' Rel a te dto th i s (p ro mo ti o n ),i s g e nderi mportant' lIf the person

is a
worran or a man'J'

T h i s q u e s t i o n i s r e e l a b o r a t e d b y s p e a k e r sa s ( 2 0 ) a n d , l a t e r o n , a s ( 2 1 ) :

(20) es u Io que iba Iu pregLuilu, t,lny discirnirnci6n para ocupar wt puesto

por el simple lrccln de ser mujer?. Por lo que a mi respecta, no.

'this
wits your question. wasn't it? Are women discriminated in
prornotion only because of the fact that they are women'1. As far as
I a m c o n c e r n e d ,t h e y a r e n ' t '

(21) -vo lu pregltttta lu lte entertdido Ete si prtr el mero lrccho de ser mujer
se le disciminu u la horu de promocionar, tto ero esa la pregunta?
-Buern, pregtuttaba por lo vslores concrelamente.

'- I understoodthe questionlike this:

Are they discriminatedbecause
of the tact they are women.Wasn'tthis the question?
- Well. I was askinsfbr values'

In this sense,we can speak about dialogicclrganization or intertextuality,

evenif discourses which are refuted remain implicit.In this way, discourseabout
discriminationwhich,at first glance,seemsto be an exchangeof opinionsdominated
by consensus, is, in fact, organizedas a discourseof self--detense, against the
accusationof sexism.This tact explainsthe relevanceof self-defenceand positive
418 l-uisa hlarth Rolo und Jat'ierCultejoGalle,qo

s e l f - p r e s e n t a t r o ns t r a t e g i e s( s e e e x a m p l e ( 1 7 ) ) .
T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e m o d e r a t o r ' si n t e r y e n t i o n .a n d t h e p c l s i t i o n sa s s u m e d
by one ol the participants, who admits in a restrained way the existence of
d i s c r i m i n i t t i o n . p e r m i t s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a n e x c u l p a t o r y d i s c o u r s e ,i n w h i c h a
s e r i e s o f a r g u m e n t s a r e e x a m i n e d a n d n e g o t i a t e d( d i s c r i m i n a t i o nd u e s n o t e x i s t i n
m u n a g c m e n t p o s i t i o n s a n d p o s i t i o n s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ;i t i . st h e c r i t e r i o n o f q u a l i t y
t h a t i r n p c d e s t h e p r o m o t i o n o f w o m e n , - b e c a u s eo f t h e i r l o w c o m m i t m e n t . a n d s c r
o n ) . S i n c e e x p l i c i t a c c u s a t i o n so r d e c l a r a t i o n so f s e x i s ma r e n o t f u r m u l a t e d b y a n y
o f t h e i n t e r k r c u t o r s ,s e l f - d e f ' e n c tea c t i c sc o u l d o n l y b e e x p l a i n e de v o c a t i n ga n d b e r n g
a w a r e o f t h c l e g i t i m a t e d i s c o u r s eo f t h e e q u a l i t y o f g e n d e r s :a d i s c o u r s et h a t d o e s
n o t a l k r w o n c t o c o n f e s st o b c i n g s e x i s t .
T h e c o n t r a d i c t i o nt h a t e x i s tb e t w c e n I e g i t i r n a t ed i s c c l u r s e
and labour pructices
a n d b e h a v i o u r s . a n d t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f l a b o L r rs p a c e a s e m i n e n t l y m a l e . i n w h i c h
w o m e n p l a y a m a r g i n a l a n d s u b s i d i a r yr o l e ( ( 1 5 ) , ( 1 6 ) . a n d ( 1 7 ) ) , h a s t w o
c o n s e q u e n c e s :I ) o n t h e o n e h a n d . i t p r e v e n t s t ' r v c r te x p r e s s i o n so f s e x i s t p o s i t i o n s
a n d t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f s e x i s t p r a c t i c e s( i t w o u l d b e e q u r v a l e n tt o t h e t r a n s g r c s s r o n
'democratization
o f l e g i t i m a t e d i s c o u r s c ,a n d i n t h i s w a y . w e c a n s p e z r ka b o u t t h e of
di.scourse')2 ; ) o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t p r t l n r t l t c sm c n ' s n e e d t o d e f e n d t h e i r w o r k
space fnrm the other gender. and to keep their dominant position in it. These
c o n s t r a i n t sd e r i v e i n s e x i s ts o c i a l p r a c t i c e s ,w h i c h c a n n o t b e o p e n l y a d r n i t t e d . T h i s
i s w h a t p r o d u c e s i n h i b i t i o n . z l s: r w i l y o f r a t i o n e r l i z a t i o n .
B y r a t i o n a l i s a t i o nw e m e a n t h e a t t e m p t t o m a k e s o m e t h i n g ( o n e ' s o w n l i f e
e x p e r i e n c e s .z r no p i n i o n . a f e e l i n g ,e t c ) p u b l i c a l l ya c c e p t a b l e( G a r f i n k e l 1 9 U 4 :2 6 7 ) .
I n t h i s s e n s e . r a t i o n a l i s : r t i o nc o n t r a s t s w i t h s p o n t a n e i t y .a s H a b e r m a . s d e s c r i b e d
rcgarding the mtionalisation implicit in dramatic action. This distinction can be
a p p l i e d t o t h e c o n t e x t o f o u r g r o L r pm e e t i n g : I n i n t e r a c t i c l n ," t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k e
i t d v a n t a g eo f t h e s i t u a t i o n a n d o r g a n i z et h e i r i n t e r a c t i o nb y m e z r n so f r e g u l a t i o n a n d
control of the reciprocaf access to each other's subjectivitv. The concept of
self-prescntation meirns. thercfore. not spontaneous expressivebehaviour, but the
stylization of the expression clf their own cxperiences,presented with a concern tor
the irnage that each would wish to give to an observer" (Habermas 19ft9: 487).
H o w c v e r , t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s n o t s p o n t a n c o u sd o c s n o t n c c e s s a r i l ym e a n t h a t t h e
speaker who uses rationzrlis;rtionsis conscior-rsly attemptjng to deceive the listener.
sinc:e.as Weber indicates. the underlying motives may conceal. even fnrm the actor
h i m s c l f , t h e t r u e s o u r c e o f h i s l h e r a c t i c t n s( W e b e r 1 9 7 9 : 9 \ . 1 3
A s w c h a v e s e e n . t h e f i n a l c o n s e q u e n c eo f t h i s d i s c u s s i o nd o m i n a t e d f r v
sexism is the exclusion of women, not only from the workplace, but frclm the wrlrld
r u fa l l t h a t i s p o s i t i v e ,o f t h e v a l u e d a n d v a l u a b l e .A r g u m e n t - b a s e ds e x i s md r s c r e d i t s
the opposite gender. and at the same time brings praise for one's own gender.
Thus, inhibitic-rn, as part of the rationalization process. permits self-
e x o n e r a t i o n : " P a r t i a l e x p r e s s i t ) n sn o t c l n l y r e s u l t f n l m c o g n i t i v ea n d c o m m u n i c a t i v e
economy. but may also be a functional move in strategy of impression formation, in
which speakers want tcl avoid negative inferences about their social belief.s"(Arkin
1 9 [ t l ) . W e f i n d i n t h e d i s c o u r s e sa n a l y z e d a c l e a r e x a m p l e o f h c l w e x p r e s s i o n
'face-keeping'
s t r a t e _ { i eas r e d i r c c t l v r e l a t e d t o i n t e r a c t i o n a ls t r a t e _ r 1 ioefs or positive

l3
F , l , d i f f c r c n t t i c f i n i r i o n so l ' r a t i o n a l i s u t i o ns.c c S c h u t z( 1 9 7 . 1 ) .
 Sarisnr in the discourseof Spanish e-yecutives 479

self-presentation(van Dryk 1991:32). It is the non adherence to legitimate discourse

and the sexist social practices. which has to be denied to present a positive image
'democratic
i n a g r e e m e n tw r t h v a l u e s ' .a n d a l l t h e d i s c u r s i v es t r a t e g i e sa n d l i n g u i s t i c
deviceswe have examined contribute to this aim.
The cssence of the arrgumentseems to be to deny, on the part of those who
hold or exercise power, that there is discrimination. The main object of the
discussion is self-justification (ur to why women are not promoted) or
self-exoneration,whilst blaming women (as other devices seem to indicate, in
addition to anecdotes). In this sense,it can be affirmed that this sexism is inhibited,
'We
at least, to some extent; the mernagerscould have said: don't promote them
becausethey don't deserve it, because they should stay at home,' etc. As Bourdieu
( 1 9 8 5 :1 1 5 )s u g g e s t si.n h i b i t i o n g i v e sm e n t h e m o n o p o l y o f a l l t h e a d v a n t a g e s sT: h e
advantageof working tct maintain the status quo, and even giving arguments for this,
and the advantage of denying any accusation of sexism. However, inhibition
desappearsin the last section of the discussions,in which the participants express
themselvesmore spontaneouslyand react against the suggestionsof the moderator
that thev could change their habits, and, by helping more at home, encourage
greaterintegration of women in the workplace. Now, this type of statement is made
explicitly:

(22) -Tti tiertes ntds po.sibilidad tle equivocqrte con urw mujer para ciertos
puestos que con tut hombre, en combio tti puedes tneter a urt hombre
de escibiente, de secretaio y furtciorn estLtpendemette...
- Yo te puedo decir Ete las dos que tenemos e,t vettas sort rtefasta.s...
- Y lttego rlue si estd e,t eslodo, que si va a t(ner wt ttifto... (RG, Dir:
4s)
-'You are more likely to make a mistake with a woman for certain
positions than with a man, you can put a man as a clerk, a secretary,
and he does really well ...'
-'l can tell you the two we have in Sales are dreadful'
-'And then she gets pregnant, she's going to have a kid'
(RG, Dir:45)

showntowardswomenwho are dedicatedto their job, whose

The a_{gressicln
prototvpcis thc singleur divorceclwoman -that is to say the woman who is not ir
mother-may he interpretedas a signof an identitycrisis:In this case,the response
to a threat towardsmasculinehegemony.We would suggestthat the expressions
u-sed arc so aggressive
rrsto point ttl a significantunderlyinginsecurityon the part
o f m en.

7. Conclusions:
Towardsan interpretationof inhibited sexism

If malcdiscoursers both acceptedand legitimate,in contrastwith temalediscourse,

if withinit the criteriaof the businessmen are reproduced,and if its intentionis the
d e t ' encof
e t he s t at u sq u o a n d th e e s ta b l i s h csdo c ialorder,them i t i s appn)pri ateto
a skwhy inhibit iono c c u rs In . fa c t, th e w o m e ni n tervi ew cd j udge thi s ki nd of mal e
4tl0 Lutso Morttn Rojo and Jay,ierCaltejo Gallego

r e a s o n i n g a s t h e n o r m a t i v e d i s c o u r s e ,a n d c o n s i d e r i t t o b e c l e a r l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y ,
because declarations of equality, always in abstract terms ('all human beings are
equal'), exist side-by-sidewith a kind of reasoning which is clearly sexist and which
supports traditional negative stereotypes and the androcentric perspective of the
workplace. Our analysis.suggeststwo possible answers.The flrst is related to social
a n d e t h i c a l c h a n g e s ,w h i c h e n t a i l c h a n g e si n d i s c o u r s e ,i n t h e s a m e w a y t h a t t h e
democratisation of n society tends to restrain the formulation of explicit, negative
l u d g m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g g e n d e r o r r a c e . S e x i s ma n d r a c i s m a r e i n h i b i t e d i n d i s c o u r s e .
The second answer is related to the first: The excessive emphasis on
s e l f - e x o n e r a t i o nd e m o n s t r a t e st h e a w a r e n e s st h a t t h e r e e x i s t sa f e m i n i n e c r i t i c i s m
w h i c h a c c u s e sm e n o f p r a c t i s i n gd i s c r i r n i n a t i o ni n t h e w o r k p l a c e . I n m a l e d i s c o u r s e
we can observe an implicit aw?lrenessof this criticism by women. by means of an
i m p l i c i t p o l i p h o n y ,w h i c h i m p l i e s t h a t f e m a l e d i s c o u r s ei s b e c o m i n gm o r e e s t a b l i s h ed
and gaining suppclrt, opening the breach zrlreadyr;pened by the democratrzatron oi
s o c i e t y i n n o r m a t i v e d i s c o u r s e( s e e ( 1 3 ) ) .
The fact that a discourse is refuted. when it is neither present. nor referred
to. but already internalized from thc moment it is acknowledged and the need tcl
reply to it is telt, shows that the fcmale argument has gathered sutficient force sc-l
that a man who openly admits to discriminatory practices cannot count on having
il positive social image. The position of these men is made difficult, almost
untenable: How can they maintain the idea that both genders are equals and
simultaneously not support the accessclf women in the workplace and, in particular,
to managerial positions; how can they argue that the woman's wrlrk should remain
as a help to the tamily budget and, similarly. that the man's role in the household
'lending
should be restrictedto a h a n d ' ; h o w c a n t h e y a r g u e t h a t s u c c e s si n l i f e i s
based on protessional success,on personal achievements,but, in the case of the
woman, what should satisfu her should be looking atter the children. Inhibited
sexism minimises and hides these contradictions, but does not sustain them; tcr
support them, the participants return to the discourseof exclusion,of the observable
'They
discrimination that is a feature of overt sexism: should have a place but
they're either not capable or they exclude themselves'.
Finally. inhibition also indicates a key moment in the process of relations
b e t w e e n g e n d e r s . I n h i b i t i o n i s t h e t h r e s h o l d o f t w o d i s t i n c t t e n d e n c i e s ,t h e b o r d e r
l i n e b c t w e e n t w o a l t e r n a t i v e s :1 . I n h i b i t e d s e x i s mh a s n o t t a k e n t h e c o m p l e t e s t e p .
Overt sexism can re-cmerges in ditficult times. such as the present with the
w o r s e n i n g o f t h e e c o n o m i c c r i s i s l r . O n e p o s s i t r i l i t yt h e n i s e i t h e r t h e r e t u r n , i r s a
refuge, to a more or less traditional sexism or the appearance of new forms. 2. The
other possibility is to go the whole way to the full recognition of the legitimacy of
equality and its practical application in daily lite.
T h e c o n c e p t o f a d i v i n d i n g l i n e w h i c h i s s t r a t e g i ca n d i n d i c a t e st h e s t o p p i n g
of a process can he clarified by using the mathematical topology of catastrophe

' * l t d o c r sn o t a P p c a r t o b e a c o i n c i d e n c ct h a t v a r i o u s s o c i a l a n a l v s t sa g r e e i n c o n s i d e r i n g
c o n t c m p o r a r vs o c r e t va s a s o c i e t vo f r i s k : L u h m a n n ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,B c c k ( l 9 t t 6 , 1 9 9 1 ,1 9 9 2 ) .G i d d e n s ( 1 9 9 3 ) .
N e i t h c r d o c s i t s e c m c t l i n c i d e n t a lt h a t t h e r c n c w a l o f a m o r e o p c n s e x i s mc o - ( ) c c u r sw i t h m o m c n t s
of crisis - ti'pically'b , u t n o t n c c c s s a r i l vf,i n a n c i a l .a s c o u l d h c o b s e n ' e dw i t h i n t h c L l n i t c d S t a t c s
d u r i n g t h e c r a o f R e a g a n i s m( R e a g a n- B u s h ) .
 Selasntin the discourse of Spanish executives 4tt1

theory(Thom 1983;1985;Woodcockand Davis 1986;Arnold 1987:Martin Santos

1990).A substantialpart of this theory has attemptedto determinethe moment
whena barrier torms in an area that was previouslyundifferentiated. The barrier
moveslike a wavethroughthe areaand later becomesstableand intensifies.In the
previouslyhomogenousarea, which, in our case,goes from the most traditional
sexismto equalitybetweenthe gendersin all aspectsof daily life, inhibitedsexism
constitutes a btrrrier in a state of increasingstabilizationand intensification.This
frontierzone,accordingto catastrophetheory,has the propertyof hysteresis: The
pitssibility
of two responsesto the same position(Zeeman 1977).The function of
hysteresis is that of delayingor retarding.Here the two responsesare: Either
acknowledgement of equality and the end of discriminatorybehaviour; or the
maintenance of inequality.However,hysteresis is alsoa rhetoricalfigure of speech,
referringto the placing betore of what comes after, in this case acceptingin
normativediscoursethe equality between genders without having previously
acceptedthe circumstances and implicationsof that equality.In Martin Santos'
words,the pert'ectdelaywould be a hysteresis (Martin Santos1990:113).Inhibited
sexismis a hysteresis that could delay the attainmentof equality.Sinceno-one ls
openlydiscriminziting, who are thoseresponsiblefor discrimination?

Re[erences

Alonso, L.E. (1991) El gntpo de discusirin en su ltrdctica: Mentoia social, intertextualidad y acci6n
it'tz (in prcparation).
conrunicut

erkin, R.N4. (1981) Sclf-presentation styles. ln Intpression ntanrtgement. Theory and social
pst'choloEcalresearch.New York: Acadcmic Press,pp. 311-33-3.

Arnold, V.l. (1987) Teoria de los catdsrrofes.Madrid: Alianz,a.

Bcck, U. (1992) From industrial socicty to risk society. Theory,,

cuhure and sociev9:97-123.

B c c k ,U . ( 1 9 9 1 ) [ . a i r r e s p o n s a b i l i d a do r g a n i z a d aD
. e b a t sM a r c h - J u n e : 3 1 - 3 7 .

Bion. W.R. (1974) E.rpt'rienuuscn grupos. Buenos Aires: Paidtis.

Bodinc,A. (1975) Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular thcy, sex indefinite he and he
or shc. Languagein Society4: 129-156"

Boudtrn,R. (1992) L'art de se ptrsunder des idles douteuscs,

fragiles our fausses.Paris: Fayard.

Bourdicu, P. (1985) iQud signilica hublar?. Econonia de los interconhios lingLiisticos.Madrid: Akal.

CalcrtrFcrndndez, M.A. (1990) La inngen de la ntujer a trav,dsde la rradici6n pareniol6gica espanola

(l-rngua y cultura). PhD, Universidad de lfrida.

Ducrot, O. (198.1)Le dire er le dit. Paris: Minuit.

Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin (1991) Rethinkingcontext.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ervin, S.M. (1962) The connotations of gender. Words 18:249-261.

482 Luisa Munh Rojo antl Jat'iar Catlejo Galtego

Fairclouqh. N. ( 1992) Discourseand Sot'ial Chungt. Cambridgc: Politv Prcss.

F c r n d n d c z l - a g u n i l l a , M . ( 1 9 9 1 ) C i d n c r o y s c x o : < , c o n t r o v c r s icai c n t i l ' i c ao d i S k r g o d c s o r d o s " I n

Bcrnis ct al. 1cds.).Acto.\ de la:^ L'll Jontado.r dc invcsri{ttci6n intcrdisciplinuriu. Lrss c.ytudio.s.sobre ltt
ntttjer d<' la inv'e.stiguci6n a la doccncia. Madrid: Instiluto Univcrsitario de la mujcr y Edicioncs
L l n i v c r s i d a dA u t t l n o m a .

Foucault, M. (1967) Nictzsche,Frutd, Marx. Paris: Minuit.

F o u u t u l t , M . ( 1 9 6 9 ) L ' a r c h & t l o g e d t t s u v ' r i r .P a r i s .G a l l i m a r d .

F o u c a u l t . M . ( 1 9 7 1 ] ,L ' o r d r c d u d i . s c t u t r sP. a r i s :C a l l i m a r d .

F o u c a u l t . M . ( l 9 l t 6 ) P o r q u d h a y q u c c s t u d i a r c l p o d c r ; L a c u c s r i 6 nd c l s u j e t o . I n C . W r i g h t M i l l s
ct al.. lvluteriulcs dt, sociologia critica. N,ladrid: t-a Piqucta.

F o u c a u l t .M . ( 1 9 9 . 1 aS1 u b l c c t i v i t 0c t v e n t 6 " D i t st t / c r i r . i r. o l . l V . P a r r s :G a l l i m a r d ,p p . 2 1 3 - 2 1 8 .

F t r u c a u l t ,I \ , { .( l t ) g - l b ) L c s u j c t u - l I c p o u v o i r . D i t : ; t t l c r i t . r ,r ' r r l . l V . P a r i s :C a l l i r n a r d , p p . 2 2 2 - 2 1 2 .

Frcud. S. ( 19,3-5)
Lu tntcrpretoci6ndt los sutruts. Blrcckrnl: Planeta.

Fucrtes, P. (191'i9)El gbtero conw cot(goriu sociol an la ltngta inglesa.Mcntoria de liccnciatura.

V a l l a d o l i d :U n i v e r s i d a dd c V a l l a d o l i d .

C i a r c i aN ' l c s s c g u c rA, . ( 1 q 9 1 ) S c x o ,g 6 n c r ov s c x i s m oe n c s p a n o l .I n B e r n i s e t a l . ( e d s . ) .A c t a s d c l u . s
l,'ll Jontodas de inve.stigttci1nrnterdisciplinana. Los tstutlios sobr( h ntujer de Ia iny'e.stigaci6na la
d o c e n c i a .M a d r i d : I n s t l t u t ( )U n i v c r s r t a r i od c :l a M u i c r v E d i c i o n c sL j n i v c r s i d a dA u t r l n o m a .

Garfinkcl, H. (198.1)Stttdits in ethnontethodolop,.Cambridgc: Politv Press.

Giddcns, A. (1993) Cortsccucncias

dt la nndernidad. Madnd: Alianz.a.

Gofl'ntan. E. ( 1961)Enctnrttus: Two Stutliesin the .yociolop'of interaclion.Indianapolis:Bob-Merrill"

Gof{man, E. (1967) Inttraction ritual;6ssa,r'.rin focc to fu<:ebehot'tor. Gardcn City. Ncw York:
Doublcdav.

Cioll'man.E. ( 1986a)Frttntc ontl1,s1t: on Ilrc oryunizationof ct'pcritncc.Boston: Northcastcrn

An as.yttv
Ll nrvcrsitl' Prcss.

G o f f m a n . E . ( l q 8 6 b ) S t r a t t g r ci n t L ' r o c t i o nP. h i l a d c l p h i a :U n i v e r s i t yo l ' P c n n s v l v a n i aP r e s s .

Grlmcz. C. ct al. (199-5)Inrrigene's

dt'la nuqtr tn.gituactotrc.s
de contpctitit'idadlaborol. Madrid: Sigkr
XXI (in prcss)

F l a b c r m a s .J . ( 1 9 8 - 5 )C o n c i c n c i an t o r a l y a t : c i d nc o n r u n i c u t i t ' aB. a r c e k r n a :P e n i n s u l a .

H a b c r m a s ,J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) T t o r i a d e l a u c c i t i r tc ' o n t t u t i c u t i l aM
. adrid: Taurus.

Habcrmas. J. (19E9) Tertr[adc la nccititt contunittttivu:E.stttdios1'contplt'nrcnto.t.

Madrid: Cdtcdra.

Ibdncz. J. (1979) Nlds alld dt la sociolog{a.Elrrupct de tliscusi(tn:Teoria)'crfticu. Madrid: Siglo XXI.

I h { n c z . J . ( 1 9 9 0 ) C t i m o s c r c a l i z . au n a i n r , e s t i g a c i ( rnnr c d r a n t cg r u p o s d c d i s c u s i r l n .I n M . G a r c i a
 Sexismin the discourse of Spanish executiy,es 483

Ferrando, J. Ibdflcz y F. A.lvira (cds.), El andlisis de la realidad social. Mdtodos y tdcnicas de

social. Madrid: Alianza (2".ed.),pp. 489-5t)1.
mvestrgaciort

Ibdnez,J. (1994) El regresodel sujeto. La invcstigacidnsociul de segundoorden. Madrid: Siglo XXL

Instituto dc la Mu;cr (1989) hopuestas para evitar el scxisntoen el lenguaje.Madrid: Ministcrio de

fuuntos Socialcs.

[,akoff. G. (l9lt7) l]/onten,fire and dangerous'things.

Chicago: Chicago University Prcss.

[,akoff. R. (1982) l,anguagc and uoman's placc. Langtage rn Sociery2: 45-80.

Luhmann, N. (1979) Trust and power. Chichestcr: Wilcy.

M a n e r u .A . ( 1 9 9 1 )E l g € n c r o r , a c c i d c n t cg r a m a t i c a lo d i s c r i m i n a c i c l n o a c c i d e n t a l ? I. n B c r n i s e t a l .
(cds.),lctas de las WI Jomodas dt invesligoci6ninterdisciplinaria.Los esrudiossobre la ntuler_de Ia
mvesttgaci6tt a la docencic. Madrid: Instituto Univcrsitario de la Mujer y Edicioncs Universida
Aut6noma.

Martin Rojo, L. (1995a) Division and rejcction: From the pcrsonification of the Gulf conflict to the
dcmonisationof Saddam Hussein. Discourse& Society6.1: 49-80.

Martin Rojo, L. (1995b) Relacionesdc podcr v cstrategiasdc resistencia:[: aparici6n de una nueva
l ' e m e n i n a (. i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) .
subjetividad

N{artinSantos.L. (1990) Teoria de las Catdstrofcs.Politicay Sociedad5:107-117.

McConncll-Ginct, S. (191t8)I-anguage and Gcndcr. In F. Newmeyer Linguistics: The Cambidge

sun)q',vol.lV: Language: The socio-culturalcontcxt.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,pp. 75-
99.

Ministericrde Educaci6n y Ciencia, (1988) Gu{a tlidrlctica para una orientaci6n no sexista.El uso no
seristadel lengtaje. Madrid: MEC. pp. 11-11.

N i s s c n ,U . ( 1 9 9 1 ) S i , p r i m e r a m i n i s t r o . i , l n f l u y e l a f e m i n i z a c i 6 nd e l o s t i t u l o s d e p r o f e s i 6 n e n l a
rnterpretaciOndel masculino en sentido extcnsivo?. In C. Bernis et al. (eds.), Actas de las WI
Jornadas de In+'estryaci6n Interdisciplinaria. Los estudios sobre la ntujer: De la investigaci6n a la
docencia.Madrid: Instituto Universitario de la Mujer & Ediciones Universidad Autdnoma, pp. 343-
362.

Orti, A. ( l9tt6) [: apcrtura v cl enfoque cualitativo o cstructural:l-a cntrevista abierta y la discusi6n

de grupo. In M. Garcia Ferrando, J. Ibdflcz v F. Alvira (eds.), El antilisis de la realidad social.
Mdtodosy ticnicas de investigaci4nsocial. Madrid: Alianza, pp. 153-185.

Peircc, CS (1966) Collected papcrs of Charlcs Sanders Peirce. vol.S, editcd by A.W. Burks.
Cambridgc,Mass.: Han'ard Univcrsity Prcss.

Perissinotto,G. (1982) Lingiiistica y scxismo.Ditilogos 18: 30-3.1.

Tajfel, H. (1981) Huntan groups and sociul categ,ories.

Cambridge: C;rmbridgc University Press.

Thom, R. (1985) Pardbolasy cattistrofes.Barcclona: Tusqucts.

Thom, R. (1983) Estabilidad estructuraltr,ntorfog[ncsrs.

Barcclona: Gedisa.
,1tt4 Lui.so Murtfu Rojo arul .lav'icr Callejo Gallt,go

T u r n c r , J . ( l 9 t t - 5 ) S o c i a l c a t c g u r i s a t i o na n d s c l l ' - c o n c c p t :A s o c i a l c o g n i t i v c t h c o r y o [ g r o u p
bchaviour. ln J. Lawlcr (cd.\, Adt'onc(.\ in group pt'occ.r'ses, vol.2. Grccnwich: JAI Prcss.

Turncr, J.. M. Hogg, P. Oakcs, S. Rcichcr, y M" Wcthcrcll (l9tt7) Rediscov'tringthe social group: A
.scIf ctrI t gtri.sn I i rtn I h con,. Oxford : Blackwcl l.

van Dijk, T. (19u7) ContnrunrL'otingrucisnt:

Ethnic prejudict in thought and talk. [.ondon: Sage.

van Dijk, TA ( 1 9 8 t 3 )N c x ' . rt t sd i s c o u r s aH

. i l l s d a l c : L ; r w r c n c eE r l h a u m .

van Dijk, T.A. (1991) Elitc tliscourst und raci.tnt.Ncwbury: Saqc.

v a n D i j k . T . A . ( 1 9 9 3 )A n a l v z i n gr a c i s mt h r o u g h d i s c o u r s ca n a l v s i sS. o m c m c t h o d o l o g i c a lr c f l e c t i o n s .
f n J . H . S t a n l ' i c l d l l c q .R . M . D c n n i s ( c d s . ) .R r t c ct t t t d c t h n i c i t t ' i n r c s e a r c hn t ( t l t o d s .N c w b u r y P a r k :
Sagc

v a n L c c u w c n , T . ( 1 9 c ) - 5 aR) c p r c s c n t i n qs o c i a l a c t i o n .D i s c o u r s t& S o c i e t v6-. 1 : U l - 1 0 6 .

v a n l - c c u w e n ,T . ( 1 9 9 5 h ) T h c r e p r c s c n ( a t i o nt l f s o c i l l a c t o r s .I n C . R . C a l d a s( c d . ) , S t i r r l 2 ,isn c n t i c n l
d i s c o u r s tt:u t u h , s i sL. o n d o n : R o u t l c d { c ( i n p r c s s )

V c r s c h u e r c n .J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) P r a g m a t i c sa s a t h c o n ' o f l i n q u i s t i ca d a p t a t i o n .I P r A l l T r k i n g D o c u n r c n tl .

V i o l i . P . 1 l 9 l i 7 1 L c s t l r i s , i n c sd u q c n r c g r a m m a t i c a l L
. a n g u u t l eu 5 : 1 5 - 3 4 .

Volosinov, V N (1973) Marusnt and tht'phiktsopht,of iangtogc. Ncw York: Scminar Press.

Wcbcr, M. (1979) Et'tvtoniu y .tttt'rt'dutl.Mexrcu: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica.

Wethercll, M. and J. Potter (1992) Mappnt tha lunsuuseof rocisnt.Discourseand the legtinmtton
o f t h e c . r p l o i t u t i o nN
. cu York: Han'cslcr,Whcatshcaf.

W o d a k . R . ( 1 9 9 5 ) C r i t i c u l l i n g u i s t i c s .I n J . B l o n r m a c r t , J - O . O s t m a n , y J . V e r s c h u c r c n ( c d s . ) ,
H n n d b o o k r t f P r a v t t t t t i r ' . sP. h i l a d c l p h u r i A m s t c r t l a mJ:o h n B e n j a m i n s( i n p r c s s ) .

W o o d c o c k , A . i ' N ' l . D a v i s ( 1 9 8 6 ) T c t t r i at l < , i u sc t u d s t r o l ( sB

. a r c c l o n a :C d t e d r a .

Zecman. E C (19'7-7)(-utesrrophcTht'on' Nlass.:Adlcshon-Weslcy.